The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Cemiplimab in locally advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma: results from an open-label, phase 2, single-arm trial
Open accessAbstract
Summary Background Cemiplimab has shown substantial antitumour activity in patients with metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. Patients with locally advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma have poor prognosis with conventional systemic therapy. We present a primary analysis of the safety and antitumour activity of cemiplimab in patients with locally advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. Methods This pivotal open-label, phase 2, single-arm trial was done across 25 outpatient clinics, primarily at academic medical centres, in Australia, Germany, and the USA. Eligible patients (aged ≥18 years with histologically confirmed locally advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–1) received cemiplimab 3 mg/kg intravenously over 30 min every 2 weeks for up to 96 weeks. Tumour measurements were done every 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was objective response, defined as the proportion of patients with complete or partial response, according to independent central review as per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 for radiological scans and WHO criteria for medical photography. Data cutoff was Oct 10, 2018, when the fully enrolled cohort reached the prespecified timepoint for the primary analysis. Analyses were done as per the intention-to-treat principle. The safety analysis comprised all patients who received at least one dose of cemiplimab. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02760498. Findings Between June 14, 2016, and April 25, 2018, 78 patients were enrolled and treated with cemiplimab. The median duration of study follow-up was 9·3 months (IQR 5·1–15·7) at the time of data cutoff. An objective response was observed in 34 (44%; 95% CI 32–55) of 78 patients. The best overall response was ten (13%) patients with a complete response and 24 (31%) with a partial response. Grade 3–4 treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 34 (44%) of 78 patients; the most common were hypertension in six (8%) patients and pneumonia in four (5%). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 23 (29%) of 78 patients. One treatment-related death was reported that occurred after onset of aspiration pneumonia. Interpretation Cemiplimab showed antitumour activity and an acceptable safety profile in patients with locally advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma for whom there was no widely accepted standard of care. Funding Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1)
Eisenhauer, E. A., Therasse, P., Bogaerts, J., Schwartz, L. H., Sargent, D., Ford, R., Dancey, J., Arbuck, S., Gwyther, S., Mooney, M., et al. (2009) · European Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026 · Cited by 29,534
Analysis of 100,000 human cancer genomes reveals the landscape of tumor mutational burden
Chalmers, Z. R., Connelly, C. F., Fabrizio, D., Gay, L., Ali, S. M., Ennis, R., Schrock, A., Campbell, B., Shlien, A., Chmielecki, J., et al. (2017) · Genome Medicine · doi:10.1186/s13073-017-0424-2 · Cited by 3,519
Seiwert, T. Y., Burtness, B., Mehra, R., Weiss, J., Berger, R., Eder, J. P., Heath, K., McClanahan, T., Lunceford, J., Gause, C., et al. (2016) · The Lancet Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(16)30066-3 · Cited by 1,745
Cited by
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Cancer Therapy
Shiravand, Y., Khodadadi, F., Kashani, S. M. A., Hosseini-Fard, S. R., Hosseini, S., Sadeghirad, H., Ladwa, R., O’Byrne, K., & Kulasinghe, A. (2022) · Current Oncology · doi:10.3390/curroncol29050247 · Cited by 1,353
Sezer, A., Kilickap, S., Gümüş, M., Bondarenko, I., Özgüroğlu, M., Gogishvili, M., Turk, H. M., Cicin, I., Bentsion, D., Gladkov, O., et al. (2021) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(21)00228-2 · Cited by 789
Self-citationLiu, Z., Zhu, Y., Xie, H., & Zou, Z. (2023) · Frontiers in Pharmacology · doi:10.3389/fphar.2022.1077468 · Cited by 77
New advances in the study of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors-induced liver injury
Yue, M., Li, C., & Li, G. (2024) · International Immunopharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.intimp.2024.111799 · Cited by 12
Metadata
- Authors
- Migden, M. R., Khushalani, N. I., Chang, A. L. S., Lewis, K. D., Schmults, C. D., Hernandez-Aya, L., Meier, F., Schadendorf, D., Guminski, A., Hauschild, A., Wong, D. J., Daniels, G. A., Berking, C., Jankovic, V., Stankevich, E., Booth, J., Li, S., Weinreich, D. M., Yancopoulos, G. D., Lowy, I., Fury, M. G., & Rischin, D.
- Venue
- The Lancet Oncology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020-02
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 294-305
- ISSN
- 1470-2045 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2998989384
- Cited by
- 496
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 44.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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.