ArticleTargeted oncology2024
lnsights into Adjuvant Systemic Treatment Selection for Patients with Stage III Melanoma: Data from the Dutch Cancer Registry.
Article in Targeted oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient demographics and shared decision making might influence the choice of adjuvant therapy for stage III melanoma.
objectiveTo identify factors for treatment selection of patients diagnosed with stage III melanoma to better understand current treatment decisions and improve further treatment counseling. PATIENTS AND
methodsData from 2007 patients diagnosed with stage III melanoma, between December 2018 and 2021, sourced from the Dutch Cancer Registry, were analyzed.
resultsAmong the cohort, 48.7% received no therapy, 45.8% received checkpoint inhibition, and 5.5% received targeted therapy (TT). Patients foregoing therapy were significantly older [67.0 years (range 53.0-77.0) vs. 62.0 year (range 52.0-72.0)], had poorer performance scores (PS), and higher Charlson Comorbidity Index scores compared to those receiving therapy (p < 0.001). Patients undergoing therapy had significantly higher median Breslow thickness (3.3 mm vs. 2.2 mm) and higher prevalence of ulceration (49.9% vs. 38.1%). Those with connective tissue disease and/or congestive heart disease were more likely to receive TT [odds ration (OR) 8.1; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.7-37.6 and OR 9.3; 95% CI 1.2-72.2, respectively]. Median treatment time among strata for disease recurrence was 4.26 months (3.69-4.82) for immunotherapy and 3.1 months (0.85-5.36) for TT (p = 0.298). Patients who developed recurrent disease were equal across treatment types (p = 0.656). The number of patients with grade 3 complications was different for each treatment type [immunotherapy: 17.8% vs. TT: 37.3% (p < 0.001)].
conclusionsAge, PS, and Breslow thickness seem to influence adjuvant treatment decisions. Clinicians' preference for immunotherapy might play a role in counseling BRAF-positive patients for adjuvant therapy, this however, cannot be confirmed in this dataset. Overall, only a small proportion of patients completed adjuvant treatment.
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.