Dramatic Responses to High-Dose Ipilimumab Plus Temozolomide After Progression on Standard- or Low-Dose Ipilimumab in Advanced Melanoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients with advanced melanoma who progress on standard-dose ipilimumab (Ipi) + nivolumab continue to have poor prognosis. Studies support a dose–response activity of Ipi, and one promising combination is Ipi 10 mg/kg (Ipi10) + temozolomide (TMZ). We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of patients with advanced melanoma treated with Ipi10 + TMZ in the immunotherapy refractory/resistant setting (n = 6, all progressed after prior Ipi + nivolumab), using similar patients treated with Ipi3 + TMZ (n = 6) as comparison. Molecular profiling by whole-exome sequencing (WES) and RNA-sequencing (RNA-seq) of tumors harvested through one responder’s treatment was performed. With a median follow up of 119 days, patients treated with Ipi10 + TMZ had a statistically significant longer median progression-free survival of 144.5 days (range 27–219) vs. 44 (26–75) in Ipi 3 mg/kg (Ipi3) + TMZ, p = 0.04, and a trend of longer median overall survival of 154.5 days (27–537) vs. 89.5 (26–548). Two patients in the Ipi10 + TMZ cohort had a partial response, and both responders had BRAF V600E mutant melanoma. RNA-seq showed enrichment of inflammatory signatures, including interferon responses in metastases after Ipi10 + TMZ compared to the primary tumor, and downregulated negative immune regulators. Ipi10 + TMZ demonstrated efficacy, including dramatic responses in patients refractory to prior Ipi + anti-PD1. Molecular data suggest a potential threshold of Ipi dose for activation of sufficient anti-tumor immune response, and higher doses are required for some patients.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".