• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

帕博利珠单抗对比纳武利尤单抗用于转移性黑色素瘤患者的疗效比较。

Comparative-effectiveness of pembrolizumab vs. nivolumab for patients with metastatic melanoma.

机构信息

Division of Medical Oncology, Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.

Division of Epidemiology, Health Sciences Center, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.

出版信息

Acta Oncol. 2020 Apr;59(4):434-437. doi: 10.1080/0284186X.2020.1712473. Epub 2020 Jan 10.

DOI:10.1080/0284186X.2020.1712473
PMID:31920132
Abstract

Pembrolizumab (P) and nivolumab (N) are commonly used therapies for advanced melanoma. However, their effectiveness has never been directly compared, leaving little guidance for clinicians to select the best therapy. Therefore, we sought to retrospectively compare the overall survival of patients with metastatic melanoma treated with front line P or N in the real-world setting. This study included patients with advanced melanoma, diagnosed between 1 January 2011 and 31 July 2018, treated with frontline P or N who were included in a nationwide, longitudinal de-identified electronic health record (EHR)-derived database. Overall survival (OS) was estimated for each treatment group using Kaplan-Meier curves with a log-rank test. Comparison of OS was estimated using an inverse probability weighting model to reduce bias between the groups. The model was adjusted using age, sex, ECOG, LDH (elevated or not), BRAF (mutated or not), Kit (mutated or not), NRAS (mutated or not), PD-L1 expression (0% or greater), Body Mass Index, and primary site. 888 patients with advanced disease who received treatment with frontline P ( = 486) or N ( = 402) were identified. Median OS for all patients treated with P was 22.6 months (m) and was 23.9 m for those treated with N ( = 0.91). In the inverse probability weight analysis there was no difference in survival between patients treated with P or N 1.06 (95% CI 0.84-1.33). In our retrospective, real-world analysis of patients with advanced melanoma, no statistical difference in OS was noted between patients treated with frontline P compared to N. This supports the current practice of choosing either P or N based on patient and provider preference.

摘要

派姆单抗(P)和纳武利尤单抗(N)是常用于治疗晚期黑色素瘤的药物。然而,它们的疗效从未被直接比较过,这使得临床医生在选择最佳治疗方法时几乎没有指导。因此,我们试图回顾性比较在真实环境中接受一线 P 或 N 治疗的转移性黑色素瘤患者的总生存期。这项研究纳入了 2011 年 1 月 1 日至 2018 年 7 月 31 日期间被诊断为晚期黑色素瘤的患者,他们接受了一线 P 或 N 的治疗,这些患者被纳入了一个全国性的、纵向的、去识别的电子健康记录(EHR)衍生数据库。使用 Kaplan-Meier 曲线和对数秩检验估计每个治疗组的总生存期(OS)。使用逆概率加权模型估计 OS 的比较,以减少组间的偏差。该模型通过年龄、性别、ECOG、LDH(升高或不升高)、BRAF(突变或不突变)、Kit(突变或不突变)、NRAS(突变或不突变)、PD-L1 表达(0%或更高)、体重指数和原发部位进行调整。共确定了 888 名接受一线 P(n=486)或 N(n=402)治疗的晚期疾病患者。所有接受 P 治疗的患者的中位 OS 为 22.6 个月(m),接受 N 治疗的患者的中位 OS 为 23.9 个月(n=0.91)。在逆概率加权分析中,接受 P 或 N 治疗的患者之间的生存无差异 1.06(95%CI 0.84-1.33)。在我们对晚期黑色素瘤患者的回顾性真实世界分析中,与 N 相比,接受一线 P 治疗的患者的 OS 没有统计学差异。这支持了目前根据患者和提供者的偏好选择 P 或 N 的做法。

相似文献

1
Comparative-effectiveness of pembrolizumab vs. nivolumab for patients with metastatic melanoma.帕博利珠单抗对比纳武利尤单抗用于转移性黑色素瘤患者的疗效比较。
Acta Oncol. 2020 Apr;59(4):434-437. doi: 10.1080/0284186X.2020.1712473. Epub 2020 Jan 10.
2
Real-world survival of patients with advanced BRAF V600 mutated melanoma treated with front-line BRAF/MEK inhibitors, anti-PD-1 antibodies, or nivolumab/ipilimumab.一线 BRAF/MEK 抑制剂、抗 PD-1 抗体或纳武利尤单抗/伊匹木单抗治疗晚期 BRAF V600 突变黑色素瘤患者的真实世界生存情况。
Cancer Med. 2019 Dec;8(18):7637-7643. doi: 10.1002/cam4.2625. Epub 2019 Nov 2.
3
Investigation of clinical factors associated with longer overall survival in advanced melanoma patients treated with sequential ipilimumab.探究与接受序贯伊匹单抗治疗的晚期黑色素瘤患者更长总生存期相关的临床因素。
J Dermatol. 2019 Jun;46(6):498-506. doi: 10.1111/1346-8138.14865. Epub 2019 Apr 4.
4
Efficacy of PD-1-based immunotherapy after radiologic progression on targeted therapy in stage IV melanoma.在晚期黑色素瘤的靶向治疗中,影像学进展后 PD-1 免疫治疗的疗效。
Eur J Cancer. 2019 Jul;116:207-215. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2019.05.015. Epub 2019 Jun 15.
5
Comparative effectiveness of second-line ipilimumab vs. nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma who received frontline anti-PD-1 antibodies.二线伊匹单抗与纳武单抗联合伊匹单抗在接受一线抗PD-1抗体治疗的晚期黑色素瘤患者中的疗效比较。
J Oncol Pharm Pract. 2021 Apr;27(3):555-559. doi: 10.1177/1078155220924719. Epub 2020 May 19.
6
Hospitalization and emergency department utilization in patients with advanced melanoma receiving pembrolizumab versus ipilimumab plus nivolumab in US academic centers.在美国学术中心接受派姆单抗与伊匹单抗加nivolumab 治疗的晚期黑色素瘤患者的住院和急诊部门利用情况。
J Med Econ. 2020 Feb;23(2):132-138. doi: 10.1080/13696998.2019.1696349. Epub 2019 Dec 9.
7
Treatment Sequencing and Clinical Outcomes in BRAF-Positive and BRAF-Negative Unresectable and Metastatic Melanoma Patients Treated with New Systemic Therapies in Routine Practice.在常规实践中采用新型全身治疗方案治疗不可切除和转移性黑色素瘤患者的 BRAF 阳性和 BRAF 阴性患者的治疗顺序和临床结局。
Target Oncol. 2019 Dec;14(6):729-742. doi: 10.1007/s11523-019-00688-8.
8
The efficacy of anti-PD-1 agents in acral and mucosal melanoma.抗程序性死亡蛋白1(PD-1)药物在肢端和黏膜黑色素瘤中的疗效。
Cancer. 2016 Nov 15;122(21):3354-3362. doi: 10.1002/cncr.30259. Epub 2016 Aug 17.
9
Comparative effectiveness of pembrolizumab vs. nivolumab in patients with recurrent or advanced NSCLC.帕博利珠单抗对比纳武利尤单抗用于复发性或晚期 NSCLC 患者的疗效比较。
Sci Rep. 2020 Aug 4;10(1):13160. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-70207-7.
10
Immune-related adverse events correlate with improved survival in patients undergoing anti-PD1 immunotherapy for metastatic melanoma.免疫相关不良反应与接受抗 PD-1 免疫治疗的转移性黑色素瘤患者的生存改善相关。
J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2019 Feb;145(2):511-521. doi: 10.1007/s00432-018-2819-x. Epub 2018 Dec 11.

引用本文的文献

1
Safety and efficacy of programmed cell death-1 inhibitors in relapsed immune-privileged site lymphoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.程序性细胞死亡蛋白1抑制剂在复发性免疫豁免部位淋巴瘤中的安全性和疗效:一项系统评价和荟萃分析。
PLoS One. 2025 Apr 29;20(4):e0319714. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0319714. eCollection 2025.
2
Battlegrounds of treatment resistance: decoding the tumor microenvironment.治疗耐药的战场:解读肿瘤微环境
Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol. 2025 Mar 25. doi: 10.1007/s00210-025-04055-5.
3
Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus PD-1 inhibitor for pN3 gastric cancer: a randomized, multicenter, Phase III trial.
辅助放化疗联合PD-1抑制剂治疗pN3期胃癌:一项随机、多中心、III期试验
Future Oncol. 2024 Dec;20(40):3389-3396. doi: 10.1080/14796694.2024.2421156. Epub 2024 Nov 15.
4
Immune responses and immunotherapeutic approaches in the treatment against cancer.癌症治疗中的免疫反应和免疫治疗方法。
Clin Exp Metastasis. 2024 Aug;41(4):473-493. doi: 10.1007/s10585-024-10300-7. Epub 2024 Aug 18.
5
Anorectal mucosal melanoma.肛管直肠黏膜黑色素瘤
Semin Colon Rectal Surg. 2023 Dec;34(4). doi: 10.1016/j.scrs.2023.100990. Epub 2023 Oct 17.
6
A Theranostic Approach to Imaging and Treating Melanoma with Pb/Pb-Labeled Antibody Targeting Melanin.一种利用靶向黑色素的铅/铅标记抗体对黑色素瘤进行成像和治疗的诊疗方法。
Cancers (Basel). 2023 Jul 29;15(15):3856. doi: 10.3390/cancers15153856.
7
Classic and new strategies for the treatment of advanced melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer.治疗晚期黑色素瘤和非黑色素瘤皮肤癌的经典及新策略。
Front Med (Lausanne). 2023 Feb 9;9:959289. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2022.959289. eCollection 2022.
8
Survival Mechanisms of Metastatic Melanoma Cells: The Link between Glucocorticoids and the Nrf2-Dependent Antioxidant Defense System.转移性黑色素瘤细胞的生存机制:糖皮质激素与 Nrf2 依赖性抗氧化防御系统之间的联系。
Cells. 2023 Jan 26;12(3):418. doi: 10.3390/cells12030418.
9
Proteomic profiling of a patient with cutaneous melanoma metastasis regression following topical contact sensitizer diphencyprone and immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment.接触致敏剂二苯环丙烯酮和免疫检查点抑制剂治疗后皮肤黑色素瘤转移消退患者的蛋白质组学分析。
Sci Rep. 2022 Dec 26;12(1):22364. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-27020-1.
10
Immune checkpoint inhibitors and the risk of major atherosclerotic cardiovascular events in patients with high-risk or advanced melanoma: a retrospective cohort study.免疫检查点抑制剂与高危或晚期黑色素瘤患者发生主要动脉粥样硬化性心血管事件的风险:一项回顾性队列研究
Cardiooncology. 2022 Dec 2;8(1):23. doi: 10.1186/s40959-022-00149-8.