ArticleThe Journal of dermatology2026
Efficacy of Adjuvant Interferon-β Versus Observation for Resected Nail Apparatus Melanoma: A Multicenter Retrospective Study.
Article in The Journal of dermatology, 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
46 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nail apparatus melanoma (NAM) is a biologically and clinically distinct subtype of melanoma; however, the efficacy of adjuvant interferon (IFN) therapy in this population remains unclear. We conducted a multicenter retrospective study to compare adjuvant IFN-β (adj-IFN) with observation (OBS) in patients with resected stage IIB, IIC, or III NAM. We analyzed 282 Japanese patients treated at 42 institutions between 2014 and 2024. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) were co-primary outcomes, and overall survival (OS) was a secondary outcome. Survival outcomes were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analyses and Cox multivariable proportional hazards models. To minimize the differences of baseline characteristics between the two groups, propensity score matching (PSM) was applied. In multivariable Cox analyses, adj-IFN showed improved RFS (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.45-0.998, p = 0.049), while no statistically significant benefits were observed for DMFS (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.42-1.01, p = 0.06) or OS (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.54-1.35, p = 0.50) compared with OBS. After PSM (71 patients per group), survival outcomes were comparable between the two groups, with no statistical significance in RFS (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.45-1.12, p = 0.14), DMFS (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.44-1.20, p = 0.22), or OS (HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.58-1.78, p = 0.96). In conclusion, no significant survival advantage of adj-IFN over observation was demonstrated in the matched cohort. Although a borderline association with improved RFS was observed in the overall cohort, this finding did not translate into consistent benefit across endpoints. Further prospective evidence, including the final results of the randomized phase III trial (JCOG1309, J-FERON), is required to clarify the clinical role of adj-IFN in NAM.
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.