ArticleThe oncologist2026
Real-world experience with ipilimumab in combination with nivolumab in advanced sarcoma: a retrospective analysis including ultra-rare sarcomas.
Article in The oncologist, 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatients with locally advanced or metastatic sarcoma have a poor prognosis and limited efficacious treatment options. Phase 2 trials have demonstrated efficacy for the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab in select sarcoma histologies, but real-world data is limited.
methodsIn this single-institution retrospective analysis, patients with metastatic or unresectable sarcoma treated with the combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) ipilimumab and nivolumab were assessed for response by iRECIST criteria and were correlated with clinical outcomes. The Kaplan-Meier method was used for survival analysis.
resultsFrom 2019 to 2024, 90 patients with advanced sarcoma were treated with combination ICI and were evaluable for outcomes. The observed objective response rate (ORR) was 16.7% with clinical benefit rate (CBR) of 30%. The best response was partial response (PR) in 14.4%, stable disease (SD) in 23.3%, and progressive disease (PD) in 62.2%. Median overall survival (OS) (95% confidence interval [CI] 14.4-NE months) and median progression-free survival (mPFS) (95% CI, 9.6-NE months) were not reached for patients achieving an objective response. OS was superior in patients who experienced immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Both mPFS and median overall survival were superior in patients with thyroid irAEs. Highest ORR were seen in angiosarcoma, malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor, leiomyosarcoma, undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma, and chondrosarcoma.
conclusionsReal-world analysis of combination ICI in a large cohort of heavily pretreated patients with advanced sarcomas demonstrates clinical benefit in a meaningful number of patients, including historically unresponsive histologies, though predictive factors remain elusive. The development of irAEs, specifically thyroid dysfunction, was associated with improved survival. Sustained responses were observed in patients who achieved an objective response.
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.