ArticleFrontiers in immunology2026
Real-world treatment patterns in stage III and IV melanoma patients: insights from a global multi-center chart review 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
38 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Anti-PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitors have substantially changed melanoma management in both the adjuvant and advanced settings. This study aimed to estimate the percentage of stage III and IV melanoma patients exposed to different therapies and describe treatment patterns among anti-PD-1-treated patients. Methods: We performed a retrospective chart review across 22 centers in Australia, France, Germany, South Korea, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Two patient populations were analyzed: (1) an aggregate cohort with stage III/IV melanoma (2018-2021), and (2) patients who received anti-PD-1 therapy in adjuvant or advanced settings from January 2018-12 months before data collection. Treatment patterns were evaluated. Results: In the aggregate cohort (N = 16,260), observation/watchful waiting predominated in stage III patients (56.8%) in the adjuvant setting, whereas systemic therapy was most common for stage IV disease in the advanced setting. In the anti-PD-1 cohort (N = 738), anti-PD-1 monotherapy predominated in the adjuvant setting (97.5%), while both anti-PD-1 monotherapy (63.1%) and anti-PD-1 plus anti-CTLA-4 (36.9%) were commonly used in the advanced setting. Across successive lines of therapy, anti-PD-1-based regimens remained frequently used despite substantial attrition between treatment lines. Disease progression was the leading cause of treatment discontinuation in advanced disease. Discussion: This real-world study highlights the central role of anti-PD-1 therapy across disease stages. Anti-PD-1 retreatment and reuse of anti-PD-1-based regimens were frequently observed across treatment lines, highlighting the limited availability of established post-anti-PD-1 treatment options. Novel strategies are urgently needed for patients progressing after anti-PD-1 therapy.
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.