Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 182

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Adjuvant ipilimumab versus placebo after complete resection of stage III melanoma: long-term follow-up results of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer 18071 double-blind phase 3 randomised trial

Open access
Eggermont, Alexander M.M., Chiarion-Sileni, Vanna, Grob, Jean-Jacques, Dummer, Reinhard, Wolchok, Jedd D., Schmidt, Henrik, Hamid, Omid, Robert, Caroline, Ascierto, Paolo Antonio, Richards, Jon M., Lebbe, Celeste, Ferraresi, Virginia, Smylie, Michael, Weber, Jeffrey S., Maio, Michele, Hosein, Fareeda, de Pril, Veerle, Kicinski, Michal, Suciu, Stefan, Testori, Alessandro·2019·European Journal of Cancer

Abstract

BACKGROUND Since 2015, adjuvant therapy with ipilimumab is an approved treatment for stage III melanoma based on a significantly prolonged recurrence-free survival (RFS). At a median follow-up of 5.3 years, RFS, distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) and overall survival (OS) were each significantly prolonged in the ipilimumab group compared with the placebo group, despite a 53.3% (ipilimumab) versus 4.6% (placebo) treatment discontinuation rate due to adverse events. We present now long-term follow-up results of this European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer 18071 trial. PATIENTS, METHODS AND RESULTS A total of 99 sites randomised 951 patients with stage III cutaneous melanoma (excluding lymph node metastasis ≤1 mm or in-transit metastasis) with adequate resection of lymph nodes to receive intravenous infusions of ipilimumab 10 mg/kg or placebo, every 3 weeks for 4 doses, then every 3 months for up to 3 years. The RFS, DMFS and OS, as reported by the local investigators, were assessed by the intention-to-treat analysis. Among 431 patients randomised at 63 sites and who were still alive at the analysis reported in 2016, recent follow-up information could be obtained for 264 patients. The median OS follow-up was 6.9 years. The RFS (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.63-0.88; P < 0.001), DMFS (HR: 95% CI: 0.76, 0.64-0.90; P = 0.002) and OS (HR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.60-0.89; P = 0.002) benefit observed in the ipilimumab group was durable with an 8.7% absolute difference at 7 years for OS. The benefit was consistent across subgroups. CONCLUSIONS Adjuvant therapy with ipilimumab prolongs RFS, DMFS and OS significantly. The benefit is sustained long term and consistent across subgroups.

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.ejca.2019.07.001

Cites

3 of 3 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

Cited by

See all 182

Metadata

Authors
Eggermont, A. M. M., Chiarion-Sileni, V., Grob, J.-J., Dummer, R., Wolchok, J. D., Schmidt, H., Hamid, O., Robert, C., Ascierto, P. A., Richards, J. M., Lebbe, C., Ferraresi, V., Smylie, M., Weber, J. S., Maio, M., Hosein, F., de Pril, V., Kicinski, M., Suciu, S., & Testori, A.
Venue
European Journal of Cancer
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-09
Volume
119
Pages
1-10
ISSN
0959-8049 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2964599082
Cited by
182
References
3
FWCI
9.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

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.