ArticleBMC cancer2024
Assessing the use of anti-PD1 monotherapy as adjuvant therapy and determinants of treatment choice in stage III cutaneous melanoma in the US.
Article in BMC cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Real-world treatment patterns in stage III and IV melanoma patients: insights from a global multi-center chart review study.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe objective of this study was to describe real-world adjuvant therapy (AT) use by disease substage and assess determinants of treatment choice among patients with stage III melanoma.
methodsThis non-interventional retrospective study included survey responses and data from patient records provided by US medical oncologists. Survey responses, patient demographic/clinical characteristics, treatment utilization, and reasons for treatment were reported descriptively. The association between patient and disease characteristics and AT selection was assessed using logistic and multinomial regression models, overall and stratified by AJCC8 substage (IIIA vs. IIIB/C/D) and type of AT received (anti-PD1 monotherapy, BRAF/MEK, no AT), respectively.
resultsIn total 152 medical oncologists completed the survey and reviewed the charts of 507 patients (168 stage IIIA; 339 stages IIIB/IIIC/IIID); 405 (79.9%) patients received AT (360/405 (88.9%) received anti-PD1 therapy; 45/405 (11.1%) received BRAF/MEK therapy). Physicians reported clinical guidelines (61.2%), treatment efficacy (37.5%), and ECOG performance status (31.6%) as drivers of AT prescription. Patient-level data confirmed that improving patient outcomes (79%) was the main reason for anti-PD1 prescription; expected limited treatment benefit (37%), patient refusal (36%), and toxicity concerns (30%) were reasons for not prescribing AT. In multivariable analyses stage IIIB/IIIC/IIID disease significantly increased the probability of receiving AT (odds ratio [OR] 1.74) and anti-PD1 therapy (OR 1.82); ECOG 2/3 and Medicaid/no insurance decreased the probability of AT receipt (OR 0.37 and 0.42, respectively) and anti-PD1 therapy (OR 0.41 and 0.42, respectively) among all patients and patients with stage IIIA disease.
conclusionMost patients were given AT with a vast majority treated with an anti-PD1 therapy. Physician- and patient-level evidence confirmed the impact of disease substage on AT use, with stage IIIA patients, patients without adequate insurance coverage, and worse ECOG status having a lower probability of receiving AT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.