Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38816701›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2024

From decision to reflection: understanding the experiences and unmet care needs of patients treated with immunotherapy for melanoma in the adjuvant or metastatic setting.

Nadia C W Kamminga, Astrid A M van der Veldt, Marlies Wakkee, Fauve R van den Berge, Lianne A A van der Beek, Margot C W Joosen, Arjen Joosse, Karlijn de Joode, Tamar E C Nijsten, Marjolein Lugtenberg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

10 authors.

Nadia C W KammingaDepartment of Dermatology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Astrid A M van der VeldtDepartment of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Marlies WakkeeDepartment of Dermatology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Fauve R van den BergeDepartment of Dermatology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Lianne A A van der BeekDepartment of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Margot C W JoosenDepartment Tranzo, Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
Arjen JoosseDepartment of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Karlijn de JoodeDepartment of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Tamar E C NijstenDepartment of Dermatology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Marjolein LugtenbergDepartment of Dermatology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. m.lugtenberg@erasmusmc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4117-2154

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite increased use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in patients with advanced melanoma, little is known about patient experiences during this treatment. This study aimed to gain an in-depth understanding of experiences and unmet care needs of patients treated in the adjuvant or metastatic setting for advanced melanoma regarding their ICI treatment trajectory.

methodsInterviews and focus groups were conducted among 35 patients treated with ICIs in the adjuvant setting for completely resected stage III (n = 14), or in the metastatic setting for irresectable stage IV (n = 21) melanoma. A thorough thematic content analysis was conducted.

resultsThree main themes were identified. When (1) dealing with uncertainty in the decision-making process, adjuvant patients explored the pros and cons, whereas metastatic patients considered immunotherapy their only viable option. Both groups expressed the need for additional guidance. In (2) navigating the immunotherapy course, both perceived the trajectory as intense, experienced a major impact on their and their (close) relatives' lives, and felt the need to (re)gain control. When (3) looking back on the immunotherapy experience, metastatic patients generally felt relieved, while among adjuvant patients, feelings of doubt regarding their choice for ICIs were also reported.

conclusionsICI treatment is perceived as intensive for both patient groups, facing both comparable and distinct challenges throughout the treatment trajectory, underscoring the need for stage-specific, individualised guidance. Options regarding flexible follow-ups, low-threshold contact and psychosocial support throughout the treatment trajectory should be explored.

Indexed as

Immune Checkpoint InhibitorsImmunotherapyMelanomaAdultAgedAged, 80 and overDecision MakingFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm MetastasisQualitative ResearchImmune Checkpoint InhibitorsImmune checkpoint inhibitorsMelanomaQualitativeSkin cancerSurvivorship careUnmet care needs

Identifiers

PMID38816701
PMCPMC11141069

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.