ReviewDie Ophthalmologie2025
[New systemic treatment approaches for conjunctival melanoma].
Review in Die Ophthalmologie, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Conjunctival melanoma is a rare disease that nevertheless has a high tumor-associated mortality rate. A resection in sano with adjuvant local treatment currently represents the therapeutic gold standard and systemic treatment is used for metastasized conjunctival melanoma and/or very advanced nonresectable local findings. New knowledge on molecular changes in conjunctival melanoma shows a clear similarity to those of cutaneous melanoma. Therefore, many findings on new systemic forms of treatment for cutaneous melanoma can be transferred to conjunctival melanoma. In the clinical application BRAF/MEK inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors are already in use and good response rates have been shown in small retrospective studies and case reports. Due to the rarity of conjunctival melanoma, there are no larger prospective studies comparing different systemic therapeutic agents. In a nonrandomized retrospective comparison, a better overall survival was shown for a combination of BRAF/MEK inhibitors (progression-free 1‑year survival probability of 54.7%; overall survival of 29.1 months) compared to a combination of PD1/CTLA4 antibodies (progression-free 1‑year survival probability of 42%; overall survival of 18 months). The current recommendation is to perform genomic profiling for every conjunctival melanoma, particularly to investigate a BRAF mutation. If a BRAF mutation is present, BRAF/MEK inhibitor treatment should preferably be initiated. Treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors can be used in the case of BRAF-negative mutation status or treatment failure with BRAF/MEK inhibitors. Monotherapy with the CTLA4 antibody ipilimumab is not recommended due to its inferiority to PD1 antibodies. New knowledge in the genomic profiling of conjunctival melanoma could enable further targeted treatment options in the future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40067450What 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.