Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41028530›Full record

ArticleCommunications medicine2025

Clinical, pathological and molecular characteristics of patients with disease recurrence despite pathologic response to neoadjuvant ipilimumab plus nivolumab in stage III melanoma.

Judith M Versluis, Huma Shehwana, Robert Elens, Alexander M Menzies, Irene L M Reijers, Petros Dimitriadis, Nigel G Maher, Astrid M M van der Veldt, Ellen Kapiteijn, Annegien Broeks and 6 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Communications medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

16 authors.

Judith M VersluisDepartment of Medical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3423-9912
Huma ShehwanaDivision of Molecular Oncology and Immunology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Robert ElensCore Facility Molecular Pathology and Biobanking, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Alexander M MenziesMelanoma Institute Australia, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Irene L M ReijersDepartment of Medical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Petros DimitriadisDivision of Molecular Oncology and Immunology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Nigel G MaherMelanoma Institute Australia, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8140-2719
Astrid M M van der VeldtDepartments of Medical Oncology and Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Ellen KapiteijnDepartment of Medical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4814-6426
Annegien BroeksCore Facility Molecular Pathology and Biobanking, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Richard A ScolyerMelanoma Institute Australia, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8991-0013
Bart A van de WielDepartment of Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Alexander C J van AkkooiMelanoma Institute Australia, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3262-6935
Ton N SchumacherDivision of Molecular Oncology and Immunology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0517-8804
Georgina V LongMelanoma Institute Australia, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8894-3545
Christian U BlankDepartment of Medical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. c.blank@nki.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7945-5846

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPathologic response has been shown to be strongly associated with long-term event-free survival after neoadjuvant ipilimumab plus nivolumab in stage III melanoma. Only a small proportion of patients developed disease recurrence after initial pathologic response, making conclusions with statistically significant data challenging. However, the homogeneity of population of patients with stage III melanoma might augment the ability to identify immune resistance mechanisms.

methodsTo test if recurrence could be due to true tumor immune evasion or due to insufficient persistence of the immune pressure, 10/140 patients with pathologic response after neoadjuvant ipilimumab plus nivolumab with disease recurrence were identified within the OpACIN, OpACIN-neo, and PRADO trials.

resultsCompared to their counterparts without recurrence, clinical characteristics are different regarding sex, age, BRAF mutation status, depth of pathologic response and frequency of immune-related endocrinopathies. Immune activation-related gene expressions are increased at recurrence after major pathologic response (MPR), but not after pathologic partial response (pPR), and TCR diversity nor clonality are different between baseline and recurrence for both MPR and pPR.

conclusionsNo genetic changes explaining tumor immune evasion are found. We propose that disease recurrence may potentially be explained by diminishing of the initial therapy-induced immune response, but not due to genetic changes in the tumor cells mediating immune evasion.

Identifiers

PMID41028530
PMCPMC12484825

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.