↓ Skip to main content

Nivolumab versus Docetaxel in Advanced Nonsquamous Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

Overview of attention for article published in New England Journal of Medicine, September 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 (97th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
7945 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
3149 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
Nivolumab versus Docetaxel in Advanced Nonsquamous Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer
Published in
New England Journal of Medicine, September 2015
DOI 10.1056/nejmoa1507643
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hossein Borghaei, Luis Paz-Ares, Leora Horn, David R Spigel, Martin Steins, Neal E Ready, Laura Q Chow, Everett E Vokes, Enriqueta Felip, Esther Holgado, Fabrice Barlesi, Martin Kohlhäufl, Oscar Arrieta, Marco Angelo Burgio, Jérôme Fayette, Hervé Lena, Elena Poddubskaya, David E Gerber, Scott N Gettinger, Charles M Rudin, Naiyer Rizvi, Lucio Crinò, George R Blumenschein, Scott J Antonia, Cécile Dorange, Christopher T Harbison, Friedrich Graf Finckenstein, Julie R Brahmer

Abstract

Background Nivolumab, a fully human IgG4 programmed death 1 (PD-1) immune-checkpoint-inhibitor antibody, disrupts PD-1-mediated signaling and may restore antitumor immunity. Methods In this randomized, open-label, international phase 3 study, we assigned patients with nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that had progressed during or after platinum-based doublet chemotherapy to receive nivolumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram of body weight every 2 weeks or docetaxel at a dose of 75 mg per square meter of body-surface area every 3 weeks. The primary end point was overall survival. Results Overall survival was longer with nivolumab than with docetaxel. The median overall survival was 12.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.7 to 15.0) among 292 patients in the nivolumab group and 9.4 months (95% CI, 8.1 to 10.7) among 290 patients in the docetaxel group (hazard ratio for death, 0.73; 96% CI, 0.59 to 0.89; P=0.002). At 1 year, the overall survival rate was 51% (95% CI, 45 to 56) with nivolumab versus 39% (95% CI, 33 to 45) with docetaxel. With additional follow-up, the overall survival rate at 18 months was 39% (95% CI, 34 to 45) with nivolumab versus 23% (95% CI, 19 to 28) with docetaxel. The response rate was 19% with nivolumab versus 12% with docetaxel (P=0.02). Although progression-free survival did not favor nivolumab over docetaxel (median, 2.3 months and 4.2 months, respectively), the rate of progression-free survival at 1 year was higher with nivolumab than with docetaxel (19% and 8%, respectively). Nivolumab was associated with even greater efficacy than docetaxel across all end points in subgroups defined according to prespecified levels of tumor-membrane expression (≥1%, ≥5%, and ≥10%) of the PD-1 ligand. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 were reported in 10% of the patients in the nivolumab group, as compared with 54% of those in the docetaxel group. Conclusions Among patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC that had progressed during or after platinum-based chemotherapy, overall survival was longer with nivolumab than with docetaxel. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; CheckMate 057 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01673867 .).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 308 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 3,149 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 7 <1%
Spain 6 <1%
Japan 4 <1%
Brazil 3 <1%
France 3 <1%
Italy 2 <1%
Netherlands 2 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Other 4 <1%
Unknown 3114 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 524 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 384 12%
Other 300 10%
Student > Bachelor 298 9%
Student > Master 264 8%
Other 593 19%
Unknown 786 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 1164 37%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 326 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 203 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 130 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 127 4%
Other 268 9%
Unknown 931 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 659. 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 05 March 2024.
All research outputs
#32,914
of 25,576,801 outputs
Outputs from New England Journal of Medicine
#1,245
of 32,562 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#315
of 287,013 outputs
Outputs of similar age from New England Journal of Medicine
#11
of 399 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,576,801 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 32,562 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 96% 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 287,013 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 399 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.