↓ Skip to main content

Quality-adjusted survival of nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone versus ipilimumab alone among treatment-naive patients with advanced melanoma: a quality-adjusted time without symptoms or…

Overview of attention for article published in Quality of Life Research, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
Title
Quality-adjusted survival of nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone versus ipilimumab alone among treatment-naive patients with advanced melanoma: a quality-adjusted time without symptoms or toxicity (Q-TWiST) analysis
Published in
Quality of Life Research, September 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11136-018-1984-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

David F. McDermott, Ruchit Shah, Komal Gupte-Singh, Javier Sabater, Linlin Luo, Marc Botteman, Sumati Rao, Meredith M. Regan, Michael Atkins

Abstract

To compare the quality-adjusted survival of nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination and nivolumab alone versus ipilimumab alone among treatment-naive patients with advanced melanoma based on a minimum 36-month follow-up from the CheckMate 067 trial. Overall survival was partitioned into time without symptoms of progression or toxicity (TWiST), time with treatment-related grade ≥ 3 adverse events after randomization but before progression (TOX), and time from progression until end of follow-up or death (REL). Mean quality-adjusted TWiST (Q-TWiST) was calculated by multiplying the mean time spent in each health state by a utility of 1.0 for TWiST and 0.5 for TOX and REL. Sensitivity analyses included varying utilities of TOX and REL; Q-TWiST gains at different follow-up times were calculated using EQ-5D-3L utilities from the trial. Relative Q-TWiST gain of ≥ 10% was considered clinically important. Compared with ipilimumab-treated patients, those who received nivolumab + ipilimumab combination had significantly longer TWiST and TOX but shorter REL; nivolumab-treated patients had significantly longer TWiST, shorter REL, and shorter but statistically nonsignificant TOX. Mean Q-TWiST was highest for nivolumab + ipilimumab (23.5 months; 95% CI 21.9-25.2), followed by nivolumab (21.8 months; 95% CI 20.2-23.4) and ipilimumab (15.3 months; 95% CI 13.9-16.6). Relative Q-TWiST gains were favorable and clinically important for nivolumab + ipilimumab combination (+ 36.81%) and nivolumab alone (+ 29.18%) versus ipilimumab alone. Relative gains increased with follow-up from 3 to 40 months for all comparisons. These gains remained consistent in magnitude and direction in the different sensitivity analyses. Nivolumab + ipilimumab combination and nivolumab alone resulted in a statistically significant and clinically important improvement in quality-adjusted survival compared with ipilimumab alone.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 42 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 8 19%
Researcher 6 14%
Student > Bachelor 6 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Student > Master 2 5%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 17 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 29%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 19 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 08 September 2018.
All research outputs
#17,989,170
of 23,102,082 outputs
Outputs from Quality of Life Research
#1,969
of 2,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#241,112
of 336,142 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Quality of Life Research
#48
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,102,082 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,923 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 336,142 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 83 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.