↓ Skip to main content

Adjuvant Nivolumab versus Ipilimumab in Resected Stage III or IV Melanoma

Overview of attention for article published in New England Journal of Medicine, September 2017
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 (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
57 news outlets
blogs
4 blogs
policy
3 policy sources
twitter
215 X users
patent
7 patents
facebook
11 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
1751 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1190 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Adjuvant Nivolumab versus Ipilimumab in Resected Stage III or IV Melanoma
Published in
New England Journal of Medicine, September 2017
DOI 10.1056/nejmoa1709030
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeffrey Weber, Mario Mandala, Michele Del Vecchio, Helen J Gogas, Ana M Arance, C Lance Cowey, Stéphane Dalle, Michael Schenker, Vanna Chiarion-Sileni, Ivan Marquez-Rodas, Jean-Jacques Grob, Marcus O Butler, Mark R Middleton, Michele Maio, Victoria Atkinson, Paola Queirolo, Rene Gonzalez, Ragini R Kudchadkar, Michael Smylie, Nicolas Meyer, Laurent Mortier, Michael B Atkins, Georgina V Long, Shailender Bhatia, Celeste Lebbé, Piotr Rutkowski, Kenji Yokota, Naoya Yamazaki, Tae M Kim, Veerle de Pril, Javier Sabater, Anila Qureshi, James Larkin, Paolo A Ascierto

Abstract

Background Nivolumab and ipilimumab are immune checkpoint inhibitors that have been approved for the treatment of advanced melanoma. In the United States, ipilimumab has also been approved as adjuvant therapy for melanoma on the basis of recurrence-free and overall survival rates that were higher than those with placebo in a phase 3 trial. We wanted to determine the efficacy of nivolumab versus ipilimumab for adjuvant therapy in patients with resected advanced melanoma. Methods In this randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 906 patients (≥15 years of age) who were undergoing complete resection of stage IIIB, IIIC, or IV melanoma to receive an intravenous infusion of either nivolumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram of body weight every 2 weeks (453 patients) or ipilimumab at a dose of 10 mg per kilogram every 3 weeks for four doses and then every 12 weeks (453 patients). The patients were treated for a period of up to 1 year or until disease recurrence, a report of unacceptable toxic effects, or withdrawal of consent. The primary end point was recurrence-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Results At a minimum follow-up of 18 months, the 12-month rate of recurrence-free survival was 70.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 66.1 to 74.5) in the nivolumab group and 60.8% (95% CI, 56.0 to 65.2) in the ipilimumab group (hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death, 0.65; 97.56% CI, 0.51 to 0.83; P<0.001). Treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were reported in 14.4% of the patients in the nivolumab group and in 45.9% of those in the ipilimumab group; treatment was discontinued because of any adverse event in 9.7% and 42.6% of the patients, respectively. Two deaths (0.4%) related to toxic effects were reported in the ipilimumab group more than 100 days after treatment. Conclusions Among patients undergoing resection of stage IIIB, IIIC, or IV melanoma, adjuvant therapy with nivolumab resulted in significantly longer recurrence-free survival and a lower rate of grade 3 or 4 adverse events than adjuvant therapy with ipilimumab. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; CheckMate 238 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02388906 ; Eudra-CT number, 2014-002351-26 .).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 215 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 1,190 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 1190 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 187 16%
Other 154 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 109 9%
Student > Master 96 8%
Student > Bachelor 90 8%
Other 221 19%
Unknown 333 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 512 43%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 100 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 49 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 46 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 30 3%
Other 74 6%
Unknown 379 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 590. 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 10 October 2023.
All research outputs
#40,120
of 25,846,867 outputs
Outputs from New England Journal of Medicine
#1,439
of 32,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#777
of 324,641 outputs
Outputs of similar age from New England Journal of Medicine
#24
of 266 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,846,867 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 32,712 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 123.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 324,641 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 266 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 90% of its contemporaries.