Abstract A03: Estimating scenarios for survival time in patients with metastatic melanoma receiving immunotherapy or targeted therapy
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background: It is important for advanced cancer patients to understand their prognosis. This allows patients to plan appropriately for end-of-life. Unfortunately, many patients do not understand their life expectancy, often overestimating their likely survival time. Estimating survival in metastatic melanoma is particularly difficult, as immunotherapy and targeted therapies extend survival time and revolutionize care. We have previously shown that three survival scenarios (worst-case, typical, best-case), calculated using simple multiples of median overall survival ([OS], 0.25x, 0.5-2x, 3x, respectively), is a useful framework to estimate and communicate survival time to advanced cancer patients. Methods: This study aimed to determine whether three survival scenarios accurately estimate prognosis for metastatic melanoma patients receiving immunotherapy or targeted therapy. We searched Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for phase II/III randomized controlled trials (treatment arms n ≥90) of patients with unresectable stage IIIC/IV cutaneous melanoma receiving immunotherapy or targeted therapy from January 2001 to February 2022. We extracted OS data from Kaplan Meier curves and compared it to our multiples of median OS. Results: 26 trials (12,345 patients) were included. Our estimates of worst-case scenarios ranged from 3.29 (interquartile range [IQR] 2.82-3.76) to 6.82 (IQR 4.48-18.93) months; most-likely lower-typical from 6.57 (IQR 5.64-7.52) to 13.64 (IQR 8.96-18.93) and upper-typical from 26.28 (IQR 22.58-30.07) to 54.55 (IQR 35.83-75.73) months; and best-case from 39.43 (IQR 33.87-45.11) to 81.83 (IQR 53.74-113.60) months, among patients receiving first-line targeted and immunotherapy, respectively. Our multiples of the median OS accurately estimated survival from anywhere between 16.7% to 100% of estimates. Our scenarios tended to be more accurate for those receiving targeted (most between 70% to 100% accuracy) than immunotherapy (some as low as 16.7%); and second- (all between 50% to 100%) than first-line (some as low as 16.7%) treatment. We were unable to estimate scenarios for patients receiving first-line combination immunotherapy, as none of the treatment arms in this group met median OS. When we were inaccurate, we tended to overestimate survival. Conclusions: This study was limited by small sample sizes and immature data. The accuracy of our scenarios was more variable than previous work done by our team. Future research should include mature data and novel interventions when determining frameworks to communicate survival in metastatic melanoma. Citation Format: Megan Smith-Uffen, John Park, Andrew Parsonson, Anuradha Vasista. Estimating scenarios for survival time in patients with metastatic melanoma receiving immunotherapy or targeted therapy [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference: Tumor Immunology and Immunotherapy; 2022 Oct 21-24; Boston, MA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Immunol Res 2022;10(12 Suppl):Abstract nr A03.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,018 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».