SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2026
Systemic treatment strategies for BRAF wild-type metastatic unresectable melanoma: a 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to provide new insights into systemic treatment for BRAF wild-type metastatic unresectable melanoma, thereby offering a basis for personalized clinical decision-making. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched. Eligible participants were adults with pathologically confirmed BRAF V600 wild-type metastatic unresectable melanoma. Outcomes included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Network meta-analysis (NMA) results were presented as league tables and the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values. Results: In total, 8 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 3,418 patients and 9 systemic treatment strategies were included. One open-label study was rated as having some concerns, while the remaining seven were rated as low risk of bias across all domains and overall. The NMA results showed that, compared to ipilimumab, pembrolizumab, nivolumab, nivolumab + relatlimab, and nivolumab + ipilimumab demonstrated significant advantages in improving OS. Notably, nivolumab + relatlimab ranked first in prolonging OS (SUCRA = 93.94%). In the PFS analysis, this regimen had the highest SUCRA value only within the connected network consisting of dacarbazine, nivolumab, and the combination of nivolumab and relatlimab (SUCRA = 98.86%), although no comparisons or standardized rankings were performed between different PFS networks. Conclusions: The results of OS primary analysis for nivolumab plus relatlimab, as well as its ranking within the corresponding PFS network, are exploratory in nature. They are intended solely to generate research hypotheses and should not be interpreted as evidence of superiority over other treatments or as a basis for changing the current standard of care. Direct head-to-head RCTs are still needed to further clarify the comparative efficacy of the relevant regimens.
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.