ArticleThe oncologist2025
Retrospective multicenter analysis of real-life toxicity and outcome of ipilimumab and nivolumab in metastatic uveal melanoma.
Article in The oncologist, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- An anti-PMEL antibody-drug conjugate with a GNature medicine · 2026Article
- Recent advances in the molecular genetic mechanisms and immune microenvironment of uveal melanoma.Melanoma research · 2026Review
- Uveal Melanoma: Biology, Prognostication, and Emerging Therapies to Outsmart an Immune-Cold Melanoma.Cancers · 2026Review
- Durable stable disease and immune activation in metastatic uveal melanoma treated with tebentafusp: case report.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- Clinical Molecular Pathology and Treatment Developments in Advanced Uveal Melanoma: State of the Art.Oncology research · 2026Review
- Article
- Functions and clinical implications of the liver microenvironment in hepatic uveal melanoma metastases.Cancer metastasis reviews · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUveal melanoma (UM) is the most common primary ocular malignancy with a high rate of metastases. While immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), including ipilimumab and nivolumab (ipi + nivo), have shown efficacy in metastatic cutaneous melanoma, their success in metastatic UM (MUM) remains limited. This study evaluates toxicity and outcomes of ipi + nivo in the largest, multicenter MUM cohort.
methodsWe analyzed 131 MUM patients treated with ipi + nivo from 2016 to 2024 across 5 international centers. Rates of toxicity, response, and survival outcomes were assessed.
resultsAmong 131 patients, 37.4% of patients received 4 cycles of ipi + nivo. The most common reason for ipi + nivo discontinuation (31.3%) was toxicity. Of all treated patients, 80.2% experienced immune-related adverse events (irAEs). The overall response rate (ORR) was 16.4%, and the disease control rate (DCR) was 43.4%. Progression-free survival (PFS) was three months, and the median overall survival (OS) was 18 months. Patients receiving ipi + nivo as second-line therapy had lower ORR compared to patients who received ipi + nivo as first-line therapy (P = .04). Patients with exclusively extrahepatic metastases had a better ORR and OS compared to those with hepatic or mixed metastases (P = .02, P = .02, respectively). 20.6% of patients developed eosinophilia during treatment, which was associated with improved median OS (24 months vs 15 months, P = .02).
conclusionsIpi + nivo shows moderate efficacy and clinically relevant toxicities in patients with MUM. Eosinophilia is a potential prognostic biomarker, that merits further investigation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.