Development of a Metastatic Uveal Melanoma Prognostic risk Score (MUMPS) for use in patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Metastatic uveal melanoma (mUM) is a rare disease for which no systemic therapy has demonstrated overall survival (OS) benefit. There are no robust data on prognostic factors for OS in patients with mUM treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). Retrospective and non-randomized prospective studies have reported response rates of 0-37% for anti-PD1/L1 +/-anti-CTLA4 ICI in mUM, indicating a potential benefit only in a subset of patients. This study evaluates the characteristics associated with ICI benefit in patients with mUM. Methods We performed a single-center retrospective cohort study of patients with mUM who received anti-PD1/L1 +/-anti-CTLA4 ICI between 2014–2019. Clinical and genomic characteristics were collected from chart review. Treatment response and clinical progression were determined by physician assessment. Multivariable Cox regression models and Kaplan-Meier log-rank tests were used to assess differences in clinical progression-free survival (cPFS) and OS between groups and to identify clinical variables associated with ICI outcomes. Results We identified 71 mUM patients who received 75 lines of ICI therapy. Of these, 54 received anti-PD1/L1 alone, and 21 received anti-PD1/L1 + anti-CTLA4. Patient characteristics were: 53% female, 48% were 65 or older, 72% received one or fewer lines of prior therapy. Within our cohort, 53% of patients had developed stage IV disease < 2 years after their initial diagnosis. Bone metastases were present in 12% of patients. For the entire cohort, the median cPFS was 2.7 months and median OS was 10.0 months. In multivariable analyses for both cPFS and OS, the following variables were associated with good prognosis: ≥ 2yrs from initial diagnosis to stage IV (n=25), LDH <1.5xULN (n=45), and absence of bone metastases (n=66). We developed a M etastatic U veal M elanoma P rognostic risk S core ( MUMPS ). Patients were divided into 3 MUMPS risk groups based on the number of the above-mentioned prognostic variables: Poor risk (0-1), Intermediate risk (2) and Good risk (3). Good risk patients experienced longer cPFS (6.0 months) and OS (34.5 months) than patients with intermediate (2.3 months cPFS, 9.4 months OS) and poor risk disease (1.8 months cPFS, 3.9 months OS); P<0.0001. Conclusion We developed a MUMPS risk score, based on retrospective data, that is comprised of 3 readily available clinical variables (time to stage IV diagnosis, presence of bone metastases, and LDH). This MUMPS risk score has potential prognostic value. Further validation in independent datasets is warranted to determine the role of this MUMPS risk score in selecting ICI treatment management for mUM.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".