ArticleCancer2026
Real-world effectiveness of chemotherapy regimens after immunotherapy in patients with advanced melanoma in Spain: Results from the GEM1801 study.
Article in Cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
30 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundChemotherapy schemes have historically shown low efficacy in patients with metastatic melanoma and have been replaced by immunotherapy and targeted therapy. This work aimed to study whether chemotherapy remains an option after progression to immunotherapy in specific contexts.
methodsThe GEM1801 registry includes patients with advanced melanoma in Spain. For this substudy, patients with metastatic melanoma who received chemotherapy after immunotherapy were selected. Baseline characteristics and treatment outcomes were analyzed.
resultsOf the 1316 patients included, with a median time of 4.8 months (range, 0.0-35.8) from the first immunotherapy, 92 received chemotherapy: 12 after adjuvant immunotherapy (cohort A), 45 subsequently to immunotherapy (cohort B), and 35 after receiving bridge therapies (cohort C). The median age was 66 years (range, 35-94), and 55.4% of the patients were male. Most patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) status of ≤1 (65.2%), whereas only 21.7% had ECOG 2. Among the patients, 54.3% had elevated lactate dehydrogenase levels. Chemotherapy regimens received were taxane/platinum-based therapies (47.8%), dimethyl triazeno imidazol carboxamide (DTIC) (26.1%), fotemustine (17.4%), and other alkylating agents such as temozolomide (8.7%). With a median follow-up of 31.9 months, the objective response rate was 12%, the median progression-free survival was 3.5 months (95% CI, 2.9-4.8), and the median overall survival was 6.1 months (95% CI, 5.3-9.2).
conclusionsAs in previous studies, patients treated with chemotherapy after immunotherapy failure had poor outcomes, similar to those from pre-immunotherapy era, and should be used when no other options are available.
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.