Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41202502›Full record

ReviewESMO open2025

Retreatment, rechallenge, and escalation with subsequent immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies across cancers after initial failure.

I P da Silva, L Zimmer, J-Y Blay, M Maio, J Larkin, M-O Grimm, S Puri, M O Butler, S Patel, P K Thakkar and 2 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in ESMO open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Cancer survivorship in malignant melanoma.Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft = Journal of the German Society of Dermatology : JDDG · 2026
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. 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

12 authors.

I P da SilvaMelanoma Institute Australia, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Faculty of Medicine & Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Department of Medical, Surgical, and Neurological Sciences, Charles Perkins Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. Electronic address: ines.silva@melanoma.org.au.
L ZimmerDepartment of Dermatology, University Hospital Essen, German Cancer Consortium, Partner Site Essen/Düsseldorf and National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), NCT-West, Campus Essen, Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
J-Y BlayCentre Léon Bérard & Université Claude Bernard, Lyon, France.
M MaioUniversity of Siena, Siena, Italy; Center for Immuno-Oncology, University Hospital of Siena, Siena, Italy.
J LarkinRoyal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
M-O GrimmJena University Hospital and Cancer Center Central Germany, Jena, Germany.
S PuriMoffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, USA.
M O ButlerPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Departments of Medicine and Immunology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
S PatelBristol Myers Squibb, Princeton, USA.
P K ThakkarBristol Myers Squibb, Princeton, USA.
G V LongMelanoma Institute Australia, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Faculty of Medicine & Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Department of Medical, Surgical, and Neurological Sciences, Charles Perkins Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Royal North Shore and Mater Hospitals, Sydney, Australia.
I MeleroClínica Universidad de Navarra and CIBERONC, Pamplona, Spain; Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImmune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are used across many tumor types in perioperative and advanced settings. However, most patients discontinue treatment due to disease progression, adverse events, or other reasons. Clinical benefit of using ICIs following discontinuation is not well defined.

methodsWe analyzed the literature examining ICI treatment outcomes after progression or discontinuation in different tumor types. We extracted data from 51 studies, assessed the strength of the evidence, summarized treatment options, and identified gaps in our understanding.

resultsWe proposed definitions for the different scenarios of subsequent treatment with ICIs. In melanoma, studies frequently reported complete response (CR), partial response (PR), and stable disease (SD) following subsequent ICI therapy. In renal cell carcinoma, discordant results have been reported following subsequent ICI treatment; some trials reported CR/PR cases, whereas others did not show any CR/PR. In non-small-cell lung cancer, we found frequent reports of PR or SD but not CR following subsequent ICI treatment, although studies had small patient cohorts. Subsequent ICI treatment showed efficacy in some patients with urothelial carcinoma, but the small cohort sizes limited the strength of the evidence. One cross-tumor study investigated subsequent ICI treatment after initial discontinuation and reported a few PR and SD without any CR.

conclusionsEvidence supporting the efficacy of subsequent ICI treatment is strongest in melanoma, but the level of evidence remains low overall. Prospective studies and improved reporting of subsequent ICI therapy in existing trials investigating long-term outcomes, standardized predictive factors, and treatment modalities are warranted.

Indexed as

Immune Checkpoint InhibitorsNeoplasmsHumansRetreatmentTreatment FailureImmune Checkpoint Inhibitorsimmune checkpoint inhibitorsimmunotherapyrechallengeretreatment

Identifiers

PMID41202502
PMCPMC12639429

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.