Cited by 318Cancer Immunotherapy and BiomarkersCutaneous Melanoma Detection and ManagementImmunotherapy and Immune Responses

Experience in daily practice with ipilimumab for the treatment of patients with metastatic melanoma: an early increase in lymphocyte and eosinophil counts is associated with improved survival

Open access
Delyon, J., Mateus, C., Lefeuvre, D., Lanoy, E., Zitvogel, L., Chaput, N., Roy, S., Eggermont, A.M.M. +2 more·2013·Annals of Oncology

Abstract

Background Ipilimumab is a recently approved immunotherapy that has demonstrated an improvement in the overall survival (OS) of patients with metastatic melanoma. We report a single-institution experience in patients treated in a compassionate-use program.Patients and methods In this prospective study, patients were treated between June 2010 and September 2011. Inclusion criteria were a diagnosis of unresectable stage III or IV melanoma, at least one previous line of chemotherapy, and survival 12 weeks after the first perfusion. Four courses of ipilimumab were administered at a dose of 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks.Results Seventy-three patients were included. Median OS was 9.1 months (95% CI 6.4-11.3) from the start of ipilimumab. Immune-related adverse events were observed in 45 patients (62%), including 19 grade 3-4 events (26%). No drug-related death occurred. A lymphocyte count >1000/mm(3) at the start of the second course and an increase in the eosinophil count >100/mm(3) between the first and second infusions were correlated with an improved OS.Conclusion Ipilimumab toxic effect is manageable in real life. Biological data such as lymphocyte and eosinophil counts at the time of the second ipilimumab infusion appear to be early markers associated with better OS.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/annonc/mdt027

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 20

  1. [1]1. Davies H, Bignell GR, Cox C et al. Mutations of the BRAF gene in human cancer. Nature 2002; 417(6892): 949-954.
  2. [2]2. Arnault JP, Wechsler J, Escudier B et al. Keratoacanthomas and squamous cell carcinomas in patients receiving sorafenib. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27(23): e59-e61.
  3. [4]4. Hong S, Hong S, Han SB. Overcoming metastatic melanoma with BRAF inhibitors. Arch Pharm Res 2011; 34(5): 699-701.
  4. [5]5. Kong HH, Sibaud V, Chanco Turner ML et al. Sorafenib-induced eruptive melanocytic lesions. Arch Dermatol 2008; 144(6): 820-822.
  5. [6]6. Tsoumpou I, Arbyn M, Kyrgiou M et al. p16(INK4a) immunostaining in cytological and histological specimens from the uterine cervix: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Treat Rev 2009; 35(3): 210-220.
  6. [7]7. Autier J, Escudier B, Wechsler J et al. Prospective study of the cutaneous adverse effects of sorafenib, a novel multikinase inhibitor. Arch Dermatol 2008; 144(7): 886-892.
  7. [8]8. Szigeti R, Kellermayer R. Autosomal-dominant calcium ATPase disorders. J Invest Dermatol 2006; 126(11): 2370-2376.
  8. [9]9. Hatzivassiliou G, Song K, Yen I et al. RAF inhibitors prime wild-type RAF to activate the MAPK pathway and enhance growth. Nature 2010; 464(7287): 431-435.
  9. [10]10. Su F, Viros A, Milagre C et al. RAS mutations in cutaneous squamous-cell carcinomas in patients treated with BRAF inhibitors. N Engl J Med 2012; 366(3): 207-215.
  10. [12]12. Arnault JP, Mateus C, Escudier B et al. Skin tumors induced by sorafenib; paradoxic RAS-RAF pathway activation and oncogenic mutations of HRAS, TP53, and TGFBR1. Clin Cancer Res 2012; 18(1): 263-272.
  11. [13]13. Zimmer L, Hillen U, Livingstone E et al. Atypical melanocytic proliferations and new primary melanomas in patients with advanced melanoma undergoing selective BRAF inhibition. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30(19): 2375-2383.
  12. [14]14. Dalle S, Poulalhon N, Thomas L. Vemurafenib in melanoma with BRAF V600E mutation. N Engl J Med 2011; 365(15): 1448-1449.
  13. [15]15. Oberholzer PA, Kee D, Dziunycz P et al. RAS mutations are associated with the development of cutaneous squamous cell tumors in patients treated with RAF inhibitors. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30(3): 316-321.
  14. [16]16. Saltz LB, Meropol NJ, Loehrer PJ, Sr et al. Phase II trial of cetuximab in patients with refractory colorectal cancer that expresses the epidermal growth factor receptor [abstract]. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22: 1201-1208.
  15. [17]17. Cunningham D, Humblet Y, Siena S et al. Cetuximab monotherapy and cetuximab plus irinotecan in irinotecan-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2004; 351: 337-345.
  16. [18]18. Dummer R, Rinderknecht J, Goldinger SM. Ultraviolet A and photosensitivity during vemurafenib therapy. N Engl J Med 2012; 366(5): 480-481.
  17. [19]19. Hauschild A, Grob JJ, Demidov LV et al. Dabrafenib in BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma: a multicentre, open-label, phase 3 randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2012; 380(9839): 358-365.
  18. [20]20. Flaherty KT, Robert C, Hersey P et al. Improved survival with MEK inhibition in BRAF-mutated melanoma. N Engl J Med 2012; 367(2): 107-114.
  19. [21]21. Falchook GS, Lewis KD, Infante JR et al. Activity of the oral MEK inhibitor trametinib in patients with advanced melanoma: a phase 1 dose-escalation trial. Lancet Oncol 2012; 13(8): 782-789. references
  20. [26]26. Chapman PB, Hauschild A, Robert C et al. Improved survival with vemurafenib in melanoma with BRAF V600E mutation. N Engl J Med 2011; 364: 2507-2516.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Delyon, J., Mateus, C., Lefeuvre, D., Lanoy, E., Zitvogel, L., Chaput, N., Roy, S., Eggermont, A. M. M., Routier, E., & Robert, C.
Affiliations
  • Institut Gustave Roussy (FR)
  • Université Paris-Sud (FR)
  • Inserm (FR)
Corresponding author
Delyon, J.
Venue
Annals of Oncology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-06
Volume
24
Issue
6
Pages
1697-1703
ISSN
0923-7534 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2107863654
Cited by
318
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 31 · 2017: 43 · 2016: 36 · 2015: 32 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 9
FWCI
16.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Annals of Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Immunotherapy and Immune Responses
Keywords
ipilimumab, metastatic melanoma, immune checkpoint inhibitors, overall survival, lymphocyte count, eosinophil count, immune-related adverse events, prognostic factors, compassionate use program
MeSH terms
Ipilimumab, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Antibodies, Monoclonal, Eosinophils, Female, Humans, Lymphocytes, Male, Melanoma, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Skin Neoplasms, Time Factors, Survival Rate, Treatment Outcome, Lymphocyte Count, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review