4.5 Article

Use of immune checkpoint inhibitors prolonged overall survival in a Japanese population of advanced malignant melanoma patients: Retrospective single institutional study

期刊

JOURNAL OF DERMATOLOGY
卷 45, 期 11, 页码 1337-1339

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1346-8138.14637

关键词

anti-programmed death 1; immune checkpoint inhibitors; Japanese patients; melanoma; T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although recent clinical trials have revealed that immune checkpoint inhibitors significantly improved the overall survival (OS) of patients with advanced melanoma, these previous studies comprised mainly white populations, in which superficial spreading melanoma (SSM) and lentigo maligna melanoma are the major clinical types of melanoma. In contrast, Asians manifest a distinct clinicopathological type of melanoma from that of whites and show much higher frequencies of acral lentiginous melanoma (ALM) and mucosal melanoma, which have been shown to be less susceptible to immune checkpoint inhibitors. Because no comparative studies have been published showing improvement of OS by immune checkpoint inhibitors in Asian melanoma patients, we retrospectively collected the data for 45 melanoma patients treated with checkpoint inhibitors and 24 melanoma patients treated with chemotherapy alone before immune checkpoint inhibitors became available, and compared their OS. The results showed that the patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors had significantly better OS than did those treated with chemotherapy alone (P < 0.0001). Improved OS was observed in both the SSM and the ALM patients. In addition, multivariate Cox regression analyses revealed that use of immune checkpoint inhibitors was associated with favorable prognosis (P = 0.0001), indicating that use of immune checkpoint inhibitors is an independent factor for favorable survival. Our study showed that immune checkpoint inhibitors may also improve the prognosis of Asian melanoma patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据