SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2026
Comparative efficacy of therapeutic modalities for metastatic uveal melanoma: a systemic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of different therapeutic modalities in the treatment of metastatic uveal melanoma (mUM). Methods: According to PRISMA criteria, We identified relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) by searching PubMed, Embase, and The Cochrane Library through March 31, 2026. Patients with liver metastatic uveal melanoma were enrolled. The analysis of clinical prognostic factors was performed using R 4.2.0. The main outcomes measured were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Results: A total of 16 articles were screened between 2000 and 2026, involving 2585 patients. The trials evaluated eight treatment approaches: tebentafusp, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), targeted therapy, targeted therapy plus chemotherapy, chemotherapy, liver-directed therapy (LDT), liver-directed therapy combined with ICIs, and liver-directed therapy plus chemotherapy. The results of the included trials showed that in terms of overall survival and progression-free survival, the liver-directed therapy combined with ICIs were the most effective regardless of the HLA genotype. Tebentafusp showed the second-best OS but the worst PFS among the compared treatments. Immune checkpoint inhibitors were inferior to tebentafusp in improving OS but were superior in PFS. Furthermore, compared with conventional systemic chemotherapy, targeted therapy, or their combination, regional liver-directed therapy demonstrated more favorable outcomes in both OS and PFS. Emerging immunotherapies (e.g., tumor vaccines, oncolytic virotherapy, tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes) and novel targeted agents could not be included in the NMA due to the absence of comparative trials or ongoing investigations. Conclusion: The liver-directed therapy combined with ICIs achieved the best results compared to Tebentafusp, ICIs and other therapeutic modality for OS and PFS extension in metastatic uveal melanoma based on available data. Future comparative studies incorporating emerging therapies are warranted. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD420261393862.
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.