Metastatic acral melanoma treatment outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acral melanomas are a unique subset of melanomas occurring on the palms, soles, and nails. There is poor prognosis with surgery alone and no specific guidelines for the treatment of metastatic acral melanoma. This meta-analysis explored the systemic therapy outcomes for metastatic acral melanoma. Medline, Pubmed, EMBASE, and the grey literature were searched from 2010 to August 2020 for studies specifying the treatment outcome of metastatic acral melanoma. Studies were assessed by two investigators. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed and pooled Kaplan-Meier curves for progression-free survival and overall survival were created. Critical appraisal was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Nineteen nonrandomized studies were included, comprising 646 patients with acral melanomas and 1609 patients with nonacral melanomas treated with systemic therapy including chemotherapy, KIT-targeted drugs, as well as anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1 checkpoint inhibitor therapy. Thirteen studies included Kaplan-Meier curves for progression-free survival or overall survival and 11 studies reported treatment responses. Patients with acral melanomas had worse prognosis than nonacral cutaneous melanoma (acral overall survival: median 15 months, 95% CI, 13.7-16.3 months; nonacral cutaneous: median 24 months, 95% CI, 22.6-25.4 months, P < 0.001). Acral melanoma patients treated with anti-PD-1 monotherapy had higher overall survival at 12 months (53%) compared with anti-CTLA-4 monotherapy (34%; P < 0.001). This study provides estimates of treatment response for metastatic acral melanoma, demonstrating low activity across a breadth of approved drug therapies, including anti-PD-1, the most active therapy in melanoma to date. Further research into treatments for metastatic acral melanoma is needed.
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 | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".