↓ Skip to main content

Combined Nivolumab and Ipilimumab or Monotherapy in Untreated Melanoma

Overview of attention for article published in New England Journal of Medicine, May 2015
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 (95th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
6522 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
3723 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
Combined Nivolumab and Ipilimumab or Monotherapy in Untreated Melanoma
Published in
New England Journal of Medicine, May 2015
DOI 10.1056/nejmoa1504030
Pubmed ID
Authors

James Larkin, Vanna Chiarion-Sileni, Rene Gonzalez, Jean Jacques Grob, C. Lance Cowey, Christopher D. Lao, Dirk Schadendorf, Reinhard Dummer, Michael Smylie, Piotr Rutkowski, Pier F. Ferrucci, Andrew Hill, John Wagstaff, Matteo S. Carlino, John B. Haanen, Michele Maio, Ivan Marquez-Rodas, Grant A. McArthur, Paolo A. Ascierto, Georgina V. Long, Margaret K. Callahan, Michael A. Postow, Kenneth Grossmann, Mario Sznol, Brigitte Dreno, Lars Bastholt, Arvin Yang, Linda M. Rollin, Christine Horak, F. Stephen Hodi, Jedd D. Wolchok

Abstract

Background Nivolumab (a programmed death 1 [PD-1] checkpoint inhibitor) and ipilimumab (a cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 [CTLA-4] checkpoint inhibitor) have been shown to have complementary activity in metastatic melanoma. In this randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study, nivolumab alone or nivolumab plus ipilimumab was compared with ipilimumab alone in patients with metastatic melanoma. Methods We assigned, in a 1:1:1 ratio, 945 previously untreated patients with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma to nivolumab alone, nivolumab plus ipilimumab, or ipilimumab alone. Progression-free survival and overall survival were coprimary end points. Results regarding progression-free survival are presented here. Results The median progression-free survival was 11.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.9 to 16.7) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, as compared with 2.9 months (95% CI, 2.8 to 3.4) with ipilimumab (hazard ratio for death or disease progression, 0.42; 99.5% CI, 0.31 to 0.57; P<0.001), and 6.9 months (95% CI, 4.3 to 9.5) with nivolumab (hazard ratio for the comparison with ipilimumab, 0.57; 99.5% CI, 0.43 to 0.76; P<0.001). In patients with tumors positive for the PD-1 ligand (PD-L1), the median progression-free survival was 14.0 months in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and in the nivolumab group, but in patients with PD-L1-negative tumors, progression-free survival was longer with the combination therapy than with nivolumab alone (11.2 months [95% CI, 8.0 to not reached] vs. 5.3 months [95% CI, 2.8 to 7.1]). Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 16.3% of the patients in the nivolumab group, 55.0% of those in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group, and 27.3% of those in the ipilimumab group. Conclusions Among previously untreated patients with metastatic melanoma, nivolumab alone or combined with ipilimumab resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival than ipilimumab alone. In patients with PD-L1-negative tumors, the combination of PD-1 and CTLA-4 blockade was more effective than either agent alone. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; CheckMate 067 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01844505 .).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 117 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 3,723 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 11 <1%
United Kingdom 6 <1%
France 4 <1%
Denmark 4 <1%
Brazil 4 <1%
Switzerland 3 <1%
Australia 2 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Other 14 <1%
Unknown 3671 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 580 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 571 15%
Student > Bachelor 447 12%
Student > Master 371 10%
Other 305 8%
Other 648 17%
Unknown 801 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 1171 31%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 509 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 404 11%
Immunology and Microbiology 295 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 123 3%
Other 302 8%
Unknown 919 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 508. 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 19 March 2024.
All research outputs
#51,277
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from New England Journal of Medicine
#1,703
of 32,687 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#456
of 284,688 outputs
Outputs of similar age from New England Journal of Medicine
#16
of 350 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 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 32,687 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 122.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 284,688 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 350 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 95% of its contemporaries.