Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,501

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effect of Nivolumab vs Bevacizumab in Patients With Recurrent Glioblastoma: The CheckMate 143 Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial

Open access
Reardon, David A., Brandes, Alba A., Omuro, Antonio, Mulholland, Paul, Lim, Michael, Wick, Antje, Baehring, Joachim, Ahluwalia, Manmeet S., Roth, Patrick, Bähr, Oliver, Phuphanich, Surasak, Sepulveda, Juan Manuel, De Souza, Paul, Sahebjam, Solmaz, Carleton, Michael, Tatsuoka, Kay, Taitt, Corina, Zwirtes, Ricardo, Sampson, John, Weller, Michael·2020·JAMA Oncology

Abstract

Importance: Clinical outcomes for glioblastoma remain poor. Treatment with immune checkpoint blockade has shown benefits in many cancer types. To our knowledge, data from a randomized phase 3 clinical trial evaluating a programmed death-1 (PD-1) inhibitor therapy for glioblastoma have not been reported. Objective: To determine whether single-agent PD-1 blockade with nivolumab improves survival in patients with recurrent glioblastoma compared with bevacizumab. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this open-label, randomized, phase 3 clinical trial, 439 patients with glioblastoma at first recurrence following standard radiation and temozolomide therapy were enrolled, and 369 were randomized. Patients were enrolled between September 2014 and May 2015. The median follow-up was 9.5 months at data cutoff of January 20, 2017. The study included 57 multicenter, multinational clinical sites. Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 to nivolumab 3 mg/kg or bevacizumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks until confirmed disease progression, unacceptable toxic effects, or death. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Results: A total of 369 patients were randomized to nivolumab (n = 184) or bevacizumab (n = 185). The MGMT promoter was methylated in 23.4% (43/184; nivolumab) and 22.7% (42/185; bevacizumab), unmethylated in 32.1% (59/184; nivolumab) and 36.2% (67/185; bevacizumab), and not reported in remaining patients. At median follow-up of 9.5 months, median OS (mOS) was comparable between groups: nivolumab, 9.8 months (95% CI, 8.2-11.8); bevacizumab, 10.0 months (95% CI, 9.0-11.8); HR, 1.04 (95% CI, 0.83-1.30); P = .76. The 12-month OS was 42% in both groups. The objective response rate was higher with bevacizumab (23.1%; 95% CI, 16.7%-30.5%) vs nivolumab (7.8%; 95% CI, 4.1%-13.3%). Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were similar between groups (nivolumab, 33/182 [18.1%]; bevacizumab, 25/165 [15.2%]), with no unexpected neurological TRAEs or deaths due to TRAEs. Conclusions and Relevance: Although the primary end point was not met in this randomized clinical trial, mOS was comparable between nivolumab and bevacizumab in the overall patient population with recurrent glioblastoma. The safety profile of nivolumab in patients with glioblastoma was consistent with that in other tumor types. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02017717.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.1024

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 1,501

Metadata

Authors
Reardon, D. A., Brandes, A. A., Omuro, A., Mulholland, P., Lim, M., Wick, A., Baehring, J., Ahluwalia, M. S., Roth, P., Bähr, O., Phuphanich, S., Sepulveda, J. M., De Souza, P., Sahebjam, S., Carleton, M., Tatsuoka, K., Taitt, C., Zwirtes, R., Sampson, J., & Weller, M.
Venue
JAMA Oncology
Published
2020-07-01
Volume
6
Issue
7
Pages
1003
ISSN
2374-2437 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3026551532
Cited by
1,501
References
1
FWCI
86.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Effect of Nivolumab vs Bevacizumab in Patients With Recurrent Glioblastoma: The CheckMate 143 Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.1024
The paper
Reardon, D. A., Brandes, A. A., Omuro, A., Mulholland, P., Lim, M., Wick, A., Baehring, J., Ahluwalia, M. S., Roth, P., Bähr, O., Phuphanich, S., Sepulveda, J. M., De Souza, P., Sahebjam, S., Carleton, M., Tatsuoka, K., Taitt, C., Zwirtes, R., Sampson, J., & Weller, M. (2020). Effect of Nivolumab vs Bevacizumab in Patients With Recurrent Glioblastoma: The CheckMate 143 Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.1024

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.