Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38464480›Full record

ArticleThe Lancet regional health. Europe2024

Cemiplimab in locally advanced or metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma: prospective real-world data from the DRUG Access Protocol.

Karlijn Verkerk, Birgit S Geurts, Laurien J Zeverijn, Vincent van der Noort, Henk M W Verheul, John B A G Haanen, Astrid A M van der Veldt, Ferry A L M Eskens, Maureen J B Aarts, Carla M L van Herpen and 7 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Lancet regional health. Europe, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Clinical and histopathological features of advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma with varying responses to cemiplimab.Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft = Journal of the German Society of Dermatology : JDDG · 2025
    Article
  14. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors.

Karlijn VerkerkDivision of Molecular Oncology & Immunology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Birgit S GeurtsDivision of Molecular Oncology & Immunology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Laurien J ZeverijnDivision of Molecular Oncology & Immunology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Vincent van der NoortDepartment of Biometrics, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Henk M W VerheulDepartment of Medical Oncology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
John B A G HaanenDepartment of Medical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Astrid A M van der VeldtDepartment of Medical Oncology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Ferry A L M EskensDepartment of Medical Oncology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Maureen J B AartsDepartment of Medical Oncology, GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Carla M L van HerpenDepartment of Medical Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Mathilde JalvingDepartment of Medical Oncology, University of Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Jourik A GietemaDepartment of Medical Oncology, University of Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Lot A DevrieseDepartment of Medical Oncology, Division Beeld & Oncologie, Utrecht University Medical Center, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Mariette LabotsDepartment of Medical Oncology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Location VUMC, Cancer Center Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Sahar Barjesteh van Waalwijk van Doorn-KhosrovaniCZ Health Insurance, Tilburg, the Netherlands.
Egbert F SmitDepartment of Pulmonology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Haiko J BloemendalDepartment of Medical Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The DRUG Access Protocol provides patients with cancer access to registered anti-cancer drugs that are awaiting reimbursement in the Netherlands and simultaneously collects prospective real-world data (RWD). Here, we present RWD from PD-1 blocker cemiplimab in patients with locally advanced or metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (laCSCC; mCSCC). Methods: Patients with laCSCC or mCSCC received cemiplimab 350 mg fixed dose every three weeks. Primary endpoints were objective clinical benefit rate (CBR), defined as objective response (OR) or stable disease (SD) at 16 weeks, physician-assessed CBR, defined as clinician's documentation of improved disease or SD based on evaluation of all available clinical parameters at 16 weeks, objective response rate (ORR), and safety, defined as grade ≥ 3 treatment related adverse events (TRAEs) occurring up to 30 days after last drug administration. Secondary endpoints included duration of response (DoR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Findings: Between February 2021 and December 2022, 151 patients started treatment. Objective and physician-assessed CBR were 54.3% (95% CI, 46.0-62.4) and 59.6% (95% CI, 51.3-67.5), respectively. ORR was 35.1% (95% CI, 27.5-43.3). After a median follow-up of 15.2 months, median DoR was not reached. Median PFS and OS were 12.2 (95% CI, 7.0-not reached) and 24.2 months (95% CI, 18.8-not reached), respectively. Sixty-eight TRAEs occurred in 29.8% of patients. Most commonly reported TRAE was a kidney transplant rejection (9.5%). Interpretation: Cemiplimab proved highly effective and safe in this real-world cohort of patients with laCSCC or mCSCC, confirming its therapeutic value in the treatment of advanced CSCC in daily clinical practice. Funding: The DRUG Access Protocol is supported by all participating pharmaceutical companies: Bayer, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi.

Indexed as

CemiplimabCutaneous squamous cell carcinomaImmune checkpoint blockadeReal-world data

Identifiers

PMID38464480
PMCPMC10924203

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.