Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39890146›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2025

Real-world outcomes in patients with melanoma brain metastasis: a US multisite retrospective chart review study of systemic treatments.

Isabella C Glitza Oliva, Jennell Palaia, Leon A Sakkal, Divya Patel, Andriy Moshyk, Natalia Han, Shardul Odak, Jordana K Schmier, Ning Ning, Sunandana Chandra

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Isabella C Glitza OlivaThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA icglitza@mdanderson.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4530-7765
Jennell PalaiaBristol Myers Squibb, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.
Leon A SakkalBristol Myers Squibb, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.
Divya PatelBristol Myers Squibb, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.
Andriy MoshykBristol Myers Squibb, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.
Natalia HanRTI Health Solutions, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.
Shardul OdakRTI Health Solutions, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.
Jordana K SchmierOpen Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Ning NingOpen Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Sunandana ChandraRobert H Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis study examined real-world treatment patterns and outcomes in patients with melanoma brain metastasis (MBM) treated with first-line immunotherapy consisting of nivolumab plus ipilimumab or anti-programmed death-1 (PD-1) monotherapy (nivolumab or pembrolizumab) or targeted therapy consisting of BRAF/MEK inhibitors.

designRetrospective chart review study.

settingAcademic medical centres, community hospitals and private practice offices.

participantsIncluded patients diagnosed with melanoma with brain metastasis in the USA. OUTCOME MEASURES: The statistical analysis was descriptive in nature. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared between treatments in a univariate Cox proportional hazards model.

resultsIn total, 472 patients with MBM who received first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n=246), anti-PD-1 monotherapy (n=112) or BRAF/MEK inhibitors (n=114) were identified. Patients receiving nivolumab plus ipilimumab, compared with patients receiving anti-PD-1 monotherapy or BRAF/MEK inhibitors, had favourable baseline prognostic factors, such as younger age, fewer or smaller brain metastases, better Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and less frequently elevated lactate dehydrogenase. Median follow-up times were 15.4 months (range 0.1 to 37.0), 13.3 months (range 0.3 to 36.6) and 13.9 months (range 1.9 to 36.5), respectively. Numerically longer OS was observed with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus anti-PD-1 monotherapy (HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.67) or BRAF/MEK inhibitors (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.04) and numerically longer PFS was observed with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus anti-PD-1 monotherapy (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.02) or BRAF/MEK inhibitors (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.12). With nivolumab plus ipilimumab, anti-PD-1 monotherapy and BRAF/MEK inhibitors, 1-year OS rates were 79%, 60% and 72%, respectively; 1-year PFS rates were 68%, 58% and 59%.

conclusionsIn this real-world study, first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab appeared to provide benefit versus anti-PD-1 monotherapy and BRAF/MEK inhibitors in patients with MBM, consistent with pivotal trial data. However, the observed benefit may have been due to confounding and selection bias, given that patients receiving nivolumab plus ipilimumab had favourable baseline prognostic factors compared with patients receiving anti-PD-1 monotherapy or BRAF/MEK inhibitors.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic Agents, ImmunologicalAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsBrain NeoplasmsImmune Checkpoint InhibitorsMelanomaSkin NeoplasmsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedFemaleHumansIpilimumabKaplan-Meier EstimateMaleMiddle AgedAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedAntineoplastic Agents, ImmunologicalImmune Checkpoint InhibitorsIpilimumabNivolumabpembrolizumabProto-Oncogene Proteins B-rafAdult oncologyDermatological tumoursNeurological oncology

Identifiers

PMID39890146
PMCPMC11795373

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.