Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38915414›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in immunology2024

Optimizing immune checkpoint blockade in metastatic uveal melanoma: exploring the association of overall survival and the occurrence of adverse events.

Elias A T Koch, Anne Petzold, Edgar Dippel, Michael Erdmann, Anja Gesierich, Ralf Gutzmer, Jessica C Hassel, Sebastian Haferkamp, Katharina C Kähler, Nicole Kreuzberg and 17 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in immunology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

27 authors.

Elias A T KochDepartment of Dermatology, Uniklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Erlangen, Germany.
Anne PetzoldDepartment of Dermatology, Uniklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Erlangen, Germany.
Edgar DippelDepartment of Dermatology, Ludwigshafen Medical Center, Ludwigshafen, Germany.
Michael ErdmannDepartment of Dermatology, Uniklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Erlangen, Germany.
Anja GesierichDepartment of Dermatology, University Hospital Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany.
Ralf GutzmerSkin Cancer Center Minden, Department of Dermatology, Mühlenkreiskliniken AöR, Ruhr University Bochum Campus Minden, Minden, Germany.
Jessica C HasselDepartment of Dermatology and National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), NCT Heidelberg, a partnership between DKFZ and University Hospital Heidelberg, Medical Faculty Heidelberg, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany.
Sebastian HaferkampDepartment of Dermatology, University Hospital Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
Katharina C KählerDepartment of Dermatology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany.
Nicole KreuzbergDepartment of Dermatology and Venereology, Skin Cancer Center at the Center of Integrated Oncology (CIO) Köln Bonn, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Ulrike LeiterDepartment of Dermatology, Center for Dermatooncology, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Carmen LoquaiDepartment of Dermatology, University Medical Center Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
Friedegund MeierSkin Cancer Center at the University Cancer Centre Dresden and National Center for Tumor Diseases, Dresden, Germany.
Markus MeissnerDepartment of Dermatology, Venereology and Allergology, Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Peter MohrDepartment of Dermatology, Elbeklinikum, Buxtehude, Germany.
Claudia PföhlerDepartment of Dermatology, Saarland University Medical School, Homburg, Germany.
Farnaz RahimiDepartment of Dermatology and Allergy, Munich University Hospital (LMU), Munich, Germany.
Beatrice SchellDepartment of Dermatology, SRH Wald-Klinikum Gera, Gera, Germany.
Patrick TerheydenDepartment of Dermatology, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.
Kai-Martin ThomsDepartment of Dermatology, University Medical Center Goettingen, Goettingen, Germany.
Selma UgurelDepartment of Dermatology, University Hospital Essen, University Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
Jens UlrichDepartment of Dermatology, Harzklinikum Dorothea Christiane Erxleben, Quedlinburg, Germany.
Jochen UtikalSkin Cancer Unit, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) and Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Allergology, University Medical Center Mannheim, Ruprecht-Karl University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany.
Michael WeichenthalDepartment of Dermatology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany.
Fabian ZillerDepartment of Dermatology, DRK Krankenhaus Rabenstein, Chemnitz, Germany.
Carola BerkingDepartment of Dermatology, Uniklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Erlangen, Germany.
Markus V HepptDepartment of Dermatology, Uniklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Erlangen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Despite recent advancements in the treatment of metastatic uveal melanoma (UM), the availability of further treatment options remains limited and the prognosis continues to be poor in many cases. In addition to tebentafusp, immune checkpoint blockade (ICB, PD-1 (+/-) CTLA-4 antibodies) is commonly used for metastatic UM, in particular in HLA-A 02:01-negative patients. However, ICB comes at the cost of potentially severe immune-related adverse events (irAE). Thus, the selection of patient groups that are more likely to benefit from ICB is desirable. Methods: In this analysis, 194 patients with metastatic UM undergoing ICB were included. Patients were recruited from German skin cancer sites and the ADOReg registry. To investigate the association of irAE occurrence with treatment response, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) two cohorts were compared: patients without irAE or grade 1/2 irAE (n=137) and patients with grade 3/4 irAE (n=57). Results: In the entire population, the median OS was 16.4 months, and the median PFS was 2.8 months. Patients with grade 3/4 irAE showed more favorable survival than patients without or grade 1/2 irAE (p=0.0071). IrAE occurred in 44.7% (87/194), and severe irAE in 29.4% (57/194) of patients. Interestingly, irColitis and irHepatitis were significantly associated with longer OS (p=0.0031 and p=0.011, respectively). Conclusions: This data may indicate an association between irAE and favorable survival outcomes in patients with metastatic UM undergoing ICB treatment and suggests that a reduced tolerance to tumor antigens could be linked to reduced tolerance to self-antigens.

Indexed as

Immune Checkpoint InhibitorsMelanomaUveal NeoplasmsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm MetastasisUveal MelanomaImmune Checkpoint Inhibitorsadverse eventsCTLA-4immune checkpoint blockadeimmune-relatedPD-1toxicityuveal melanoma

Identifiers

PMID38915414
PMCPMC11194381

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.