ArticleNeuro-oncology advances
Outcomes of patients with melanoma brain metastases treated with ipilimumab and nivolumab with or without upfront comprehensive stereotactic radiosurgery.
Article in Neuro-oncology advances. 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
21 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: The efficacy of ipilimumab and nivolumab (ipi/nivo) for melanoma brain metastases (MBMs) has been previously reported, leading to uncertainty regarding the optimal role of comprehensive stereotactic radiosurgery (cSRS). We therefore conducted a single-institution retrospective study to compare outcomes of upfront versus deferred cSRS for MBM treated with ipi/nivo. Methods: We identified patients who started ipi/nivo for newly diagnosed MBMs between 2018 and 2023, with or without upfront cSRS. Patients with >15 MBMs, leptomeningeal disease, or whole-brain radiotherapy at baseline were excluded. Outcomes were compared using multivariable regression and reported as adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) with 95% CIs. Results: Of the 132 patients identified, 52.3% received upfront cSRS and 47.7% did not. Patients who received upfront cSRS had larger maximum MBMs (median 2.3 vs 0.7 cm; Conclusions: In this retrospective study, upfront cSRS was more often used in patients with higher-risk MBM and was associated with improved intracranial control, although no significant survival benefit was observed. These findings suggest that starting ipi/nivo alone may be reasonable for lower-risk MBM, but prospective studies are needed to guide optimal integration of cSRS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.