↓ Skip to main content

Nivolumab for Recurrent Squamous-Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck

Overview of attention for article published in New England Journal of Medicine, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
3757 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1634 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Nivolumab for Recurrent Squamous-Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck
Published in
New England Journal of Medicine, October 2016
DOI 10.1056/nejmoa1602252
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robert L Ferris, George Blumenschein, Jerome Fayette, Joel Guigay, A Dimitrios Colevas, Lisa Licitra, Kevin Harrington, Stefan Kasper, Everett E Vokes, Caroline Even, Francis Worden, Nabil F Saba, Lara C Iglesias Docampo, Robert Haddad, Tamara Rordorf, Naomi Kiyota, Makoto Tahara, Manish Monga, Mark Lynch, William J Geese, Justin Kopit, James W Shaw, Maura L Gillison

Abstract

Background Patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck after platinum chemotherapy have a very poor prognosis and limited therapeutic options. Nivolumab, an anti-programmed death 1 (PD-1) monoclonal antibody, was assessed as treatment for this condition. Methods In this randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial, we assigned, in a 2:1 ratio, 361 patients with recurrent squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck whose disease had progressed within 6 months after platinum-based chemotherapy to receive nivolumab (at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram of body weight) every 2 weeks or standard, single-agent systemic therapy (methotrexate, docetaxel, or cetuximab). The primary end point was overall survival. Additional end points included progression-free survival, rate of objective response, safety, and patient-reported quality of life. Results The median overall survival was 7.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.5 to 9.1) in the nivolumab group versus 5.1 months (95% CI, 4.0 to 6.0) in the group that received standard therapy. Overall survival was significantly longer with nivolumab than with standard therapy (hazard ratio for death, 0.70; 97.73% CI, 0.51 to 0.96; P=0.01), and the estimates of the 1-year survival rate were approximately 19 percentage points higher with nivolumab than with standard therapy (36.0% vs. 16.6%). The median progression-free survival was 2.0 months (95% CI, 1.9 to 2.1) with nivolumab versus 2.3 months (95% CI, 1.9 to 3.1) with standard therapy (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.13; P=0.32). The rate of progression-free survival at 6 months was 19.7% with nivolumab versus 9.9% with standard therapy. The response rate was 13.3% in the nivolumab group versus 5.8% in the standard-therapy group. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 13.1% of the patients in the nivolumab group versus 35.1% of those in the standard-therapy group. Physical, role, and social functioning was stable in the nivolumab group, whereas it was meaningfully worse in the standard-therapy group. Conclusions Among patients with platinum-refractory, recurrent squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck, treatment with nivolumab resulted in longer overall survival than treatment with standard, single-agent therapy. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; CheckMate 141 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02105636 .).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 279 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,634 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 1623 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 258 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 181 11%
Other 166 10%
Student > Master 127 8%
Student > Bachelor 115 7%
Other 328 20%
Unknown 459 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 606 37%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 175 11%
Immunology and Microbiology 80 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 68 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 52 3%
Other 110 7%
Unknown 543 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1536. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 November 2023.
All research outputs
#7,557
of 25,559,053 outputs
Outputs from New England Journal of Medicine
#395
of 32,563 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#93
of 328,624 outputs
Outputs of similar age from New England Journal of Medicine
#9
of 311 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,559,053 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 32,563 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 122.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,624 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 311 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.