MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Outcomes of non-treatment naive melanoma patients with central nervous system relapse.

2021· article· en· W3172607654 on OpenAlexaff
Thiago Pimentel Muniz, Hadee Lone, Diana P. Arteaga, Diana Gray, Maysa Tamara Silveira Vilbert Pereira, Luke Mantle, Raviya Singh, Sofia Genta, Samuel D. Saibil, David Hogg, Anna Spreafico, Marcus O. Butler

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBrain Metastases and Treatment
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIpilimumabMelanomaAcral lentiginous melanomaInternal medicineProportional hazards modelNivolumabOncologySurvival analysisLog-rank testRetrospective cohort studyCancerImmunotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

9557 Background: Melanoma has a high probability of central nervous system (CNS) spread. Although first line nivolumab and ipilimumab resulted in 56% response rate and 29.2 months median overall survival (OS) in patients with melanoma brain metastases (MBM), there is paucity of data for patients who develop MBM after prior systemic therapy. As this subgroup is often underrepresented in clinical trials, we aimed to evaluate the OS of non-treatment naïve patients who develop MBM and identify factors related to survival. Methods: In this single-center, retrospective study, consecutive melanoma patients with > 90 days from exposure to either immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI), targeted therapy (TT), or chemotherapy, to CNS relapse were included. OS was defined as the time between CNS relapse and death by any cause. The Log-Rank method was used to calculate OS. Cox regression analysis was used to identify differences between subgroups. Variables with a p value < 0.1 were included in a multivariate model. A p value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Between 2012 and 2018, 135 patients were identified. Median age was 57 (29-92) years, 92 (68%) were male, and median number of prior systemic therapies was 2 (1-6). One-hundred and nine (81%) patients had cutaneous melanoma; acral lentiginous melanoma (ALM) comprised 11 (8%) patients. Molecular studies were available for 123 patients, of whom 61 (50%) were BRAF V600 mutant. Eighty-nine (66%) patients had prior ICI, of whom 33 (37%) had prior exposure to both anti-PD1 and anti-CTLA-4, either as monotherapy or combination. Amongst the BRAF V600 mutant population, 48 (79%) had prior TT. Radiotherapy was given to 112 patients, of whom 55 (49%) had SRS. Median follow-up was 41 (95% CI 30-51) months. Median OS was 6.4 (95% CI 5.3-7.5) months. Patients with ALM, > 3 MBM, ECOG 2-4 and active treatment at CNS relapse (< 30 days from last dose of treatment to MBM diagnosis) were at increased risk of death, whilst subsequent treatment with ICI was related to better survival (Table). On multivariate analyses, age ( p = 0.007), subtype ( p = 0.04), number of MBM ( p = 0.01), active treatment at CNS relapse ( p < 0.001) and subsequent ICI ( p = 0.002) remained statistically significant. Exploratory analyses suggested subsequent treatment with anti-PD1 + anti-CTLA-4 (n = 42) compared favourably to subsequent anti-CTLA-4 only (n = 21) (13 x 7 months, p = 0.004), and was independent of prior ICI. Conclusions: Previously treated melanoma patients who develop MBM have a poor prognosis, but subsequent ICI therapy seems to be associated with better OS. Further clinical investigation to identify optimal anti-PD1-based therapies is warranted for non-treatment naïve patients who develop 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.347 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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