MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Treatment outcomes in patients (pts) with melanoma brain metastases (MBM) treated with systemic therapy: A systematic literature review (SLR) and meta-analysis.

2021· article· en· W3167878998 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Hussein Tawbi, Georgina V. Long, Nicolás Meyer, Boris Breznen, Charmy Vyas, Lisa Leung, Andriy Moshyk, Divya Pushkarna, Pratik K. Thakkar, Mir Sohail Fazeli, Srividya Kotapati, Dirk Schadendorf

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBrain Metastases and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBristol-Myers Squibb Canada
KeywordsMedicineIpilimumabNivolumabInternal medicineMeta-analysisPopulationOncologyClinical trialRandomized controlled trialSystematic reviewSystemic therapyMEDLINEImmunotherapyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

9561 Background: The introduction of immunotherapy and targeted therapy has revolutionized the treatment landscape for metastatic melanoma. However, clinical trial data in pts with MBM are scarce; here we summarize the available clinical evidence. Methods: An SLR was conducted by searching EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases through November 13, 2020. When available, Kaplan-Meier (K-M) curves for overall survival (OS) were digitized and converted to pseudo-individual pt data using the Guyot algorithm. A meta-analysis of the pooled K-M curves was performed for selected interventions, including immunotherapies and targeted therapies. Median OS was calculated either through the meta-analysis of K-M curves or as a weighted average of median OS (table). When interventions were reported in only 1 study, the value reported was used instead of the weighted average and compared qualitatively with the other results. Results for treatment modalities other than systemic agents will also be presented. Results: The SLR included 70 publications that evaluated systemic therapies in pts with MBM for qualitative evidence synthesis: 12 pertaining to 7 randomized controlled trials, 55 pertaining to 46 single-arm studies, and 3 involving nonrandomized comparative studies. The pt population was highly heterogeneous with respect to prior therapies, pt characteristics, and neurological symptoms. For the meta-analysis, a total of 25 K-M curves from 12 studies representing 6 interventions and 1043 pts were digitized. Based on the pooled K-M curves, median OS was numerically longer with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO + IPI; 28.3 mo; 95% CI, 19.7-31.9) than with the other interventions (range 5.7-11.8 mo; table). Similar OS benefit was also observed with NIVO + IPI when the weighted average of the median was used (in a long-term study, median OS was 29.2 mo) compared with the other interventions. Conclusions: Given the lack of comparative clinical trial data in pts with MBM, there remains an unmet need to determine the best approach to treat these pts. This analysis suggested a clinical advantage with NIVO + IPI compared with other systemic agents analyzed. The heterogeneity of the available data added uncertainty to our treatment assessments. Therefore, these findings warrant further research into the best approach to improve outcomes in pts with MBM.[Table: see text]

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.288
Threshold uncertainty score0.665

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.112
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.315 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicBrain Metastases and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207