ArticleFrontiers in immunology2026
Clinical activity and safety of nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab in metastatic melanoma: findings from REALIPINIVO, a real-world study.
Article in Frontiers in immunology, 2026. 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
27 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Metastatic melanoma has historically had a poor prognosis; however, survival has improved with immunotherapies, such as PD-1 and CTLA-4 inhibitors, and molecular targeted therapies for BRAF-mutant tumors. The combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab is highly effective, though with increased rates of toxicity. In Italy, since January 2022, such therapeutic combination has been approved and reimbursed only for metastatic melanoma patients with brain metastases or with PD-L1 expression <1%. Methods: We conducted a real-world study in six academic centers in southern Italy and analyzed the efficacy and toxicity outcomes in 72 patients. Results: The response rate was 54% (39/72) and, after 13.6 months of median follow-up, a longer median progression-free survival [17.03 months (95% CI 4.8-18.6)] compared to the pivotal CheckMate-067 trial or to other real-world studies. Better survival correlated with objective responses (p<0.0001) and low disease burden (less than three metastatic sites) (p=0.0415). All patients achieving an objective response had tumors with high or intermediatetumor mutational burden. The rates of immune-related adverse events were similar to those reported in the literature, but there was a lower therapy discontinuation rate. This might be due to more appropriate managing of emerging immunotherapy toxicities.
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.