button bars forest bayes pooled summary circles
benefit
(statisticaly significant) 		benefit (nominaly significant, not statitically demonstrated) NS not significant harm statitically significant NS harm not significant low certainty due to bias
 
deaths (OS)progression or deaths (PFS)RFS/DFS

mML - L1 - all population metastatic/adv melanoma (mML) mML - 1st line (L1) mML - L1 - all population

versus ipilimumab alone
nivolumab alone vs. ipilimumab alone 1 -37%-43%-
nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. ipilimumab alone 2 -42%-59%-
versus ipilimumab followed by nivolumab
nivolumab followed by ipilimumab vs. ipilimumab followed by nivolumab 1 -52%--
versus nivolumab alone
nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. nivolumab alone 1 -35%-26%-
relatlimab plus nivolumab vs. nivolumab alone 1 --25%-
versus Standard of Care (SoC)
tremelimumab vs. Standard of Care (SoC) 1 NS--

mML - L1 - BRAF mutant metastatic/adv melanoma (mML) mML - 1st line (L1) mML - L1 - BRAF mutant

versus ipilimumab alone
nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. ipilimumab alone 1 NS-62%-
versus placebo plus SoC
atezolizumab plus SoC vs. placebo plus SoC 1 NS-22%-

mML - L1 - BRAF wild metastatic/adv melanoma (mML) mML - 1st line (L1) mML - L1 - BRAF wild

versus dacarbazine
nivolumab alone vs. dacarbazine 1 -58%-57%-
versus ipilimumab alone
nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. ipilimumab alone 1 --60%-
versus pembrolizumab alone
atezolizumab plus cometinib vs. pembrolizumab alone 1 NSNS-

 

- About us - Contact us - Method - RSS Made with in Lyon - Credits - Privacy policy - Licence Creative Commons