Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39352553›Full record

ArticleClinical and experimental medicine2024

Immunotherapy response and resistance in patients with advanced uveal melanoma: a retrospective cohort study.

Alexander Maurer, Giulio Clerici, Jan A Schaab, Phil F Cheng, Daniela Mihic-Probst, Cäcilia Mader, Michael Messerli, Martin W Huellner, Reinhard Dummer, Florentia Dimitriou

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical and experimental medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. 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.

Alexander Maurer *Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital of Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Giulio Clerici *Department of Dermatology, University Hospital of Zurich, University of Zurich, Raemistrasse 100, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland.
Jan A SchaabDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital of Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Phil F ChengDepartment of Oncology, Geneva University Hospital, Geneva, Switzerland.
Daniela Mihic-ProbstInstitute for Pathology and Molecular Pathology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Cäcilia MaderDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital of Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Michael MesserliDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital of Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Martin W HuellnerDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital of Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Reinhard DummerDepartment of Dermatology, University Hospital of Zurich, University of Zurich, Raemistrasse 100, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland.
Florentia DimitriouDepartment of Dermatology, University Hospital of Zurich, University of Zurich, Raemistrasse 100, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland. florentia.dimitriou@usz.ch.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Metastatic uveal melanoma (mUM) is associated with poor prognosis. Ipilimumab/nivolumab has shown antitumor efficacy in phase II studies. Tebentafusp resulted in longer overall survival (OS) compared to investigator`s choice in a phase III study. We sought to describe the radiological response patterns of mUM patients treated with immunotherapy. Patients with mUM treated with ipilimumab/nivolumab and tebentafusp between July 2018 and December 2022, with available radiological assessment per RECISTv1.1 and/or imPERCIST5, were retrospectively identified and included. Progression-free survival (PFS) and OS rates, liver-specific response and pathological assessment in available liver biopsies were evaluated. In the ipilimumab/nivolumab group, median PFS (mPFS) was 2.9 months (95% CI 2.2-28.6) and mOS 28.9 months (95% CI 12.7-NR). Complete (CMR) and partial (PMR) metabolic response per imPERCIST5, and partial response (PR) per RECISTv1.1 were associated with longer PFS and OS by trend, compared to morphologically and metabolically stable or progressive disease. In the tebentafusp group, mPFS was 2.7 months (95% CI 2.2-3) and mOS 18.6 months (95% CI 11.5-NR). PMR and PR were associated with longer PFS by trend. In both treatments, the overall treatment response was associated with the radiological response at the liver site. In available liver tumor biopsies, differences in pathological and radiological responses were noted. ImPERCIST5 and RECIST v1.1 are valuable tools in the radiological response assessment, but both methods display limitations. Accurate biomarkers to stratify patients at risk for disease progression and future translational studies to investigate mechanisms of response and resistance are required.

Indexed as

ImmunotherapyIpilimumabMelanomaNivolumabUveal NeoplasmsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsDrug Resistance, NeoplasmFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProgression-Free SurvivalRetrospective StudiesIpilimumabNivolumabImmune checkpoint inhibitorsImmunotherapyTebentafuspUveal melanoma

Identifiers

PMID39352553
PMCPMC11445343

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.