Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 270

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Second-line nivolumab in relapsed small-cell lung cancer: CheckMate 331☆

Open access
Spigel, D.R., Vicente, D., Ciuleanu, T.E., Gettinger, S., Peters, S., Horn, L., Audigier-Valette, C., Pardo Aranda, N., Juan-Vidal, O., Cheng, Y., Zhang, H., Shi, M., Luft, A., Wolf, J., Antonia, S., Nakagawa, K., Fairchild, J., Baudelet, C., Pandya, D., Doshi, P., Chang, H., Reck, M.·2021·Annals of Oncology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patients with relapsed small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) have few treatment options and dismal survival. Phase I/II data show activity of nivolumab in previously treated SCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: CheckMate 331 is a randomized, open-label, phase III trial of nivolumab versus standard chemotherapy in relapsed SCLC. Patients with relapse after first-line, platinum-based chemotherapy were randomized 1 : 1 to nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks or chemotherapy (topotecan or amrubicin) until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Overall, 284 patients were randomized to nivolumab and 285 to chemotherapy. Minimum follow-up was 15.8 months. No significant improvement in OS was seen with nivolumab versus chemotherapy [median OS, 7.5 versus 8.4 months; hazard ratio (HR), 0.86; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.72-1.04; P = 0.11]. A survival benefit with nivolumab was suggested in patients with baseline lactate dehydrogenase ≤ upper limit of normal and in those without baseline liver metastases. OS (nivolumab versus chemotherapy) was similar in patients with programmed death-ligand 1 combined positive score ≥1% versus <1%. Median progression-free survival was 1.4 versus 3.8 months (HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.18-1.69). Objective response rate was 13.7% versus 16.5% (odds ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.50-1.27); median duration of response was 8.3 versus 4.5 months. Rates of grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events were 13.8% versus 73.2%. CONCLUSION: Nivolumab did not improve survival versus chemotherapy in relapsed SCLC. No new safety signals were seen. In exploratory analyses, select baseline characteristics were associated with improved OS for nivolumab.

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 · 10.1016/j.annonc.2021.01.071

Cites

4 of 4 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 4 references

Cited by

See all 270

Metadata

Authors
Spigel, D. R., Vicente, D., Ciuleanu, T. E., Gettinger, S., Peters, S., Horn, L., Audigier-Valette, C., Pardo Aranda, N., Juan-Vidal, O., Cheng, Y., Zhang, H., Shi, M., Luft, A., Wolf, J., Antonia, S., Nakagawa, K., Fairchild, J., Baudelet, C., Pandya, D., Doshi, P., Chang, H., & Reck, M.
Venue
Annals of Oncology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-05
Volume
32
Issue
5
Pages
631-641
ISSN
0923-7534 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3127182916
Cited by
270
References
4
FWCI
17.04
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: Second-line nivolumab in relapsed small-cell lung cancer: CheckMate 331☆. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.annonc.2021.01.071
The paper
Spigel, D. R., Vicente, D., Ciuleanu, T. E., Gettinger, S., Peters, S., Horn, L., Audigier-Valette, C., Pardo Aranda, N., Juan-Vidal, O., Cheng, Y., Zhang, H., Shi, M., Luft, A., Wolf, J., Antonia, S., Nakagawa, K., Fairchild, J., Baudelet, C., Pandya, D., . . . Reck, M. (2021). Second-line nivolumab in relapsed small-cell lung cancer: CheckMate 331☆. Annals of Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annonc.2021.01.071

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.