↓ Skip to main content

Nivolumab monotherapy in recurrent metastatic urothelial carcinoma (CheckMate 032): a multicentre, open-label, two-stage, multi-arm, phase 1/2 trial

Overview of attention for article published in Lancet Oncology, November 2016
Altmetric Badge
39

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 (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
10 tweeters
patent
6 patents

Readers on

mendeley
305 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 monotherapy in recurrent metastatic urothelial carcinoma (CheckMate 032): a multicentre, open-label, two-stage, multi-arm, phase 1/2 trial
Published in
Lancet Oncology, November 2016
DOI 10.1016/s1470-2045(16)30496-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Padmanee Sharma, Margaret K Callahan, Petri Bono, Joseph Kim, Pavlina Spiliopoulou, Emiliano Calvo, Rathi N Pillai, Patrick A Ott, Filippo de Braud, Michael Morse, Dung T Le, Dirk Jaeger, Emily Chan, Chris Harbison, Chen-Sheng Lin, Marina Tschaika, Alex Azrilevich, Jonathan E Rosenberg

Abstract

Few effective treatments exist for patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma that has progressed after platinum-based chemotherapy. We assessed the activity and safety of nivolumab in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma whose disease progressed after previous platinum-based chemotherapy. In this phase 1/2, multicentre, open-label study, we enrolled patients (age ≥18 years) with urothelial carcinoma of the renal pelvis, ureter, bladder, or urethra at 16 sites in Finland, Germany, Spain, the UK, and the USA. Patients were not selected by PD-L1 expression, but tumour PD-L1 membrane expression was assessed retrospectively. Patients received nivolumab 3 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks until disease progression or treatment discontinuation because of unacceptable toxicity or other protocol-defined reasons, whichever occurred later. The primary endpoint was objective response by investigator assessment. All patients who received at least one dose of the study drug were included in the analyses. We report an interim analysis of this ongoing trial. CheckMate 032 is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01928394. Between June 5, 2014, and April 24, 2015, 86 patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma were enrolled in the nivolumab monotherapy group and 78 received at least one dose of treatment. At data cutoff (March 24, 2016), the minimum follow-up was 9 months (median 15·2 months, IQR 12·9-16·8). A confirmed investigator-assessed objective response was achieved in 19 (24·4%, 95% CI 15·3-35·4) of 78 patients. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 17 (22%) of 78 patients; the most common were elevated lipase (four [5%]), elevated amylase (three [4%]), and fatigue, maculopapular rash, dyspnoea, decreased lymphocyte count, and decreased neutrophil count (two [3%] each). Serious adverse events were reported in 36 (46%) of 78 patients and eight (10%) had a serious adverse event judged to be treatment related. Two (3%) of 78 patients discontinued because of treatment-related adverse events (grade 4 pneumonitis and grade 4 thrombocytopenia) and subsequently died. Nivolumab monotherapy was associated with a substantial and durable clinical response and a manageable safety profile in previously treated patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. These data support further investigation of nivolumab monotherapy in advanced urothelial carcinoma. Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 305 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 300 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 50 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 36 12%
Student > Master 36 12%
Other 35 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 6%
Other 63 21%
Unknown 66 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 144 47%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 30 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 6 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 2%
Other 14 5%
Unknown 86 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 39. 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 21 December 2021.
All research outputs
#751,655
of 19,852,973 outputs
Outputs from Lancet Oncology
#962
of 5,957 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,244
of 289,132 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Lancet Oncology
#24
of 134 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,852,973 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,957 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 289,132 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 134 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.