ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2026
Bispecific T-Cell Engagers, Cell Therapies, and Other Non-Checkpoint Immunotherapies for Metastatic Uveal Melanoma: A Narrative Review.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Metastatic uveal melanoma (MUM) remains largely refractory to immune-checkpoint inhibition, so recent research has turned to bispecific T-cell engagers (BTCEs), adoptive-cell therapies (ACTs), and oncolytic viruses (OVs). To summarize the available clinical evidence, we performed a structured literature search across PubMed, Scopus, and Europe PMC for primary studies published between 1 January 2010 and 31 May 2025 that enrolled at least three adults with MUM, treated with one of these modalities, and that reported efficacy or grade-3+ safety outcomes; two reviewers independently performed screening, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment, and because of notable heterogeneity, we synthesized the findings narratively. Twenty-two studies met the criteria-thirteen phase I-III trials, eight observational cohorts, and one case series-covering fifteen BTCE cohorts, four ACT cohorts, and three OV cohorts. Tebentafusp, the dominant BTCE evaluated in roughly 1150 HLA-A*02:01-positive patients, extended median overall survival from 16.0 to 21.7 months (hazard ratio 0.51, with three-year follow-up HR 0.68) in its pivotal phase-III trial despite objective response rates of only 5-12%, with early skin rash and week-12 circulating-tumor-DNA clearance emerging as consistent markers of benefit. Tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte therapy, administered to about thirty patients, produced objective responses in 11-35% and occasional durable complete remissions, although median progression-free survival remained 2-6 months and severe cytopenias were universal. Three early-phase OV studies, totaling twenty-nine patients, yielded no radiographic responses but showed tumor-specific T-cell expansion and transient disease stabilization. Safety profiles reflected the mechanism of action: tebentafusp most often caused rash, pyrexia, and usually manageable cytokine-release syndrome with grade-3+ events in 40-70% yet discontinuation in roughly 2%; TIL therapy toxicity was driven by lymphodepleting chemotherapy and high-dose interleukin-2 with one treatment-related death; and OVs were generally well tolerated with no more than 20% grade-3 events.
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.