↓ Skip to main content

Nivolumab in metastatic urothelial carcinoma after platinum therapy (CheckMate 275): a multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 trial

Overview of attention for article published in Lancet Oncology, March 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 (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
11 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
3 policy sources
twitter
100 tweeters
patent
4 patents
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
1053 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
622 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 in metastatic urothelial carcinoma after platinum therapy (CheckMate 275): a multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 trial
Published in
Lancet Oncology, March 2017
DOI 10.1016/s1470-2045(17)30065-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Padmanee Sharma, Margitta Retz, Arlene Siefker-Radtke, Ari Baron, Andrea Necchi, Jens Bedke, Elizabeth R Plimack, Daniel Vaena, Marc-Oliver Grimm, Sergio Bracarda, José Ángel Arranz, Sumanta Pal, Chikara Ohyama, Abdel Saci, Xiaotao Qu, Alexandre Lambert, Suba Krishnan, Alex Azrilevich, Matthew D Galsky

Abstract

Patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma have a dismal prognosis and few treatment options after first-line chemotherapy. Responses to second-line treatment are uncommon. We assessed nivolumab, a fully human IgG4 PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitor antibody, for safety and activity in patients with metastatic or surgically unresectable urothelial carcinoma whose disease progressed or recurred despite previous treatment with at least one platinum-based chemotherapy regimen. In this multicentre, phase 2, single-arm study, patients aged 18 years or older with metastatic or surgically unresectable locally advanced urothelial carcinoma, measurable disease (according to Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors v1.1), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance statuses of 0 or 1, and available tumour samples for biomarker analysis received nivolumab 3 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks until disease progression and clinical deterioration, unacceptable toxicity, or other protocol-defined reasons. The primary endpoint was overall objective response confirmed by blinded independent review committee in all treated patients and by tumour PD-L1 expression (≥5% and ≥1%). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02387996, and is completed. Follow-up is still ongoing. Between March 9, 2015, and Oct 16, 2015, 270 patients from 63 sites in 11 countries received nivolumab, and 265 were evaluated for activity. Median follow-up for overall survival was 7·00 months (IQR 2·96-8·77). Confirmed objective response was achieved in 52 (19·6%, 95% CI 15·0-24·9) of 265 patients. Confirmed objective response was achieved in 23 (28·4%, 95% CI 18·9-39·5) of the 81 patients with PD-L1 expression of 5% or greater, 29 (23·8%, 95% CI 16·5-32·3) of the 122 patients with PD-L1 expression of 1% or greater, and 23 (16·1%, 95% CI 10·5-23·1) of the 143 patients with PD-L1 expression of less than 1%. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 48 (18%) of 270 patients-most commonly grade 3 fatigue and diarrhoea, which each occurred in five patients. Three deaths were attributed to treatment (pneumonitis, acute respiratory failure, and cardiovascular failure). Nivolumab monotherapy provided meaningful clinical benefit, irrespective of PD-L1 expression, and was associated with an acceptable safety profile in previously treated patients with metastatic or surgically unresectable urothelial carcinoma. Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 100 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 622 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 2 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Unknown 619 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 106 17%
Other 98 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 71 11%
Student > Master 43 7%
Student > Bachelor 41 7%
Other 129 21%
Unknown 134 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 268 43%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 64 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 33 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 23 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 19 3%
Other 52 8%
Unknown 163 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 159. 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 November 2021.
All research outputs
#184,606
of 21,084,186 outputs
Outputs from Lancet Oncology
#230
of 6,138 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,164
of 389,865 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Lancet Oncology
#9
of 136 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,084,186 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 6,138 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 31.0. 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 389,865 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 136 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 94% of its contemporaries.