ArticleCancers2025
Real-World Outcomes of Ipilimumab-Nivolumab vs. Anti-PD-1 Monotherapy in Metastatic Uveal Melanoma: A Single-Center Retrospective Study.
Article in Cancers, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Potential of Nanoparticle-Based Phototherapies for Future Treatment of Uveal Melanoma.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Advances in the management of neuroendocrine tumours: Evidence from a systematic review.Biomedical reports · 2026Article
- Real-World Treatment Patterns and Survival in Uveal Melanoma: A Multicenter Cohort Study by the Turkish Oncology Group (TOG).Cancers · 2026Article
- Clinical Molecular Pathology and Treatment Developments in Advanced Uveal Melanoma: State of the Art.Oncology research · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesMetastatic uveal melanoma (mUM) carries a poor prognosis and limited systemic treatment options. While immune checkpoint inhibitors have improved outcomes in cutaneous melanoma, their activity in mUM remains modest. Tebentafusp has recently emerged as the first therapy to improve overall survival in HLA-A*02:01-positive patients, but effective options for others remain scarce. This study compared the real-world effectiveness and safety of ipilimumab plus nivolumab versus anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) monotherapy.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective single-center analysis of patients with mUM treated at the National Institute of Oncology, Budapest. Patients received either dual checkpoint inhibition (ipilimumab plus nivolumab) or anti-PD-1 monotherapy (nivolumab or pembrolizumab). Evaluated outcomes included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Survival was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier methods, log-rank tests, and Cox regression.
resultsFifty-five patients were included (33 ipilimumab-nivolumab, 22 anti-PD-1). ORR was 21% versus 5%, and DCR was 42% versus 32%, respectively. Median PFS was 5.8 vs. 3.7 months (
conclusionsAnti-PD-1 monotherapy demonstrated limited clinical activity, providing little benefit beyond conventional chemotherapy. Dual checkpoint blockade with ipilimumab and nivolumab achieved higher response and disease control rates, albeit with increased toxicity, suggesting a potential benefit for selected patients. Tebentafusp has emerged as an effective option and a new standard of care for a molecularly defined subgroup of HLA-A*02:01-positive patients. However, for the majority of individuals with metastatic uveal melanoma, effective systemic therapies remain an unmet need.
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.