The DOI matches its Crossref record; 26 of the 26 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Nivolumab for Recurrent Squamous-Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck after platinum chemotherapy have a very poor prognosis and limited therapeutic options. Nivolumab, an anti-programmed death 1 (PD-1) monoclonal antibody, was assessed as treatment for this condition. METHODS: In this randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial, we assigned, in a 2:1 ratio, 361 patients with recurrent squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck whose disease had progressed within 6 months after platinum-based chemotherapy to receive nivolumab (at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram of body weight) every 2 weeks or standard, single-agent systemic therapy (methotrexate, docetaxel, or cetuximab). The primary end point was overall survival. Additional end points included progression-free survival, rate of objective response, safety, and patient-reported quality of life. RESULTS: The median overall survival was 7.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.5 to 9.1) in the nivolumab group versus 5.1 months (95% CI, 4.0 to 6.0) in the group that received standard therapy. Overall survival was significantly longer with nivolumab than with standard therapy (hazard ratio for death, 0.70; 97.73% CI, 0.51 to 0.96; P=0.01), and the estimates of the 1-year survival rate were approximately 19 percentage points higher with nivolumab than with standard therapy (36.0% vs. 16.6%). The median progression-free survival was 2.0 months (95% CI, 1.9 to 2.1) with nivolumab versus 2.3 months (95% CI, 1.9 to 3.1) with standard therapy (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.13; P=0.32). The rate of progression-free survival at 6 months was 19.7% with nivolumab versus 9.9% with standard therapy. The response rate was 13.3% in the nivolumab group versus 5.8% in the standard-therapy group. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 13.1% of the patients in the nivolumab group versus 35.1% of those in the standard-therapy group. Physical, role, and social functioning was stable in the nivolumab group, whereas it was meaningfully worse in the standard-therapy group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with platinum-refractory, recurrent squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck, treatment with nivolumab resulted in longer overall survival than treatment with standard, single-agent therapy. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; CheckMate 141 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02105636 .).
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Although PD-L1 expression on tumor cells was correlated with treatment efficacy in melanoma patients (67, 108), it was not in patients with squamous cell carcinoma, non-small cell lung cancer and Merkel cell carcinoma (70, 72, 74).”
From Anti-PD-1 and Anti-CTLA-4 Therapies in Cancer: Mechanisms of Action, Efficacy, and Limitations (2018) · cites this paper as [70]
In the citing paper
“Response rates range from 15 to 30% (in most solid tumors) to 45–60% (in melanoma and MSI-H tumors).”
From Immune-related adverse events and anti-tumor efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (2019) · cites this paper as [5]
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
Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: Sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012
Ferlay, J., Soerjomataram, I., Dikshit, R., Eser, S., Mathers, C., Rebelo, M., Parkin, D. M., Forman, D., & Bray, F. (2015) · International Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1002/ijc.29210 · Cited by 28,766
Adverse Renal Effects of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Narrative Review
Wanchoo, R., Karam, S., Uppal, N. N., Barta, V. S., Deray, G., Devoe, C., Launay‐Vacher, V., Jhaveri, K. D., & on behalf of Cancer and Kidney International Network Workgroup on Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors (2017) · American Journal of Nephrology · doi:10.1159/000455014 · Cited by 15,320
Nivolumab versus docetaxel in advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer
Borghaei, H., Paz-Ares, L., Horn, L., Spigel, D. R., Steins, M., Ready, N. E., Chow, L. Q., Vokes, E. E., Felip, E., Holgado, E., et al. (2015) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1507643 · Cited by 9,335
Self-citationNivolumab versus Docetaxel in Advanced Squamous-Cell Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer
Brahmer, J., Reckamp, K. L., Baas, P., Crinò, L., Eberhardt, W. E. E., Poddubskaya, E., Antonia, S., Pluzanski, A., Vokes, E. E., Holgado, E., et al. (2015) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1504627 · Cited by 8,447
Self-citationImmune Checkpoint Blockade: A Common Denominator Approach to Cancer Therapy
Topalian, S. L., Drake, C. G., & Pardoll, D. M. (2015) · Cancer Cell · doi:10.1016/j.ccell.2015.03.001 · Cited by 4,229
Survival Analysis Techniques for Censored and Truncated Data
Rao, M. B., Klein, J. P., & Moeschberger, M. L. (1998) · Technometrics · doi:10.2307/1270658 · Cited by 3,617
Survival analysis using sas®: a practical guide
Allison, P. D. (1995) · International Linear Collider · Cited by 3,570
A Multiple Testing Procedure for Clinical Trials
O'Brien, P. C., & Fleming, T. R. (1979) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2530245 · Cited by 3,311
Cooper, J. S., Pajak, T. F., Forastiere, A. A., Jacobs, J., Campbell, B. H., Saxman, S. B., Kish, J. A., Kim, H. E., Cmelak, A. J., Rotman, M., et al. (2004) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa032646 · Cited by 3,271
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Cancer immunotherapy using checkpoint blockade
Ribas, A., & Wolchok, J. D. (2018) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aar4060 · Cited by 6,791
El-Khoueiry, A. B., Sangro, B., Yau, T., Crocenzi, T. S., Kudo, M., Hsu, C., Kim, T.-Y., Choo, S.-P., Trojan, J., Welling, T. H., et al. (2017) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(17)31046-2 · Cited by 4,280
A guide to cancer immunotherapy: from T cell basic science to clinical practice
Waldman, A. D., Fritz, J. M., & Lenardo, M. J. (2020) · Nature Reviews Immunology · doi:10.1038/s41577-020-0306-5 · Cited by 4,154
Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma
Johnson, D. E., Burtness, B. A., Leemans, C. R., Lui, V. W. Y., Bauman, J. E., & Grandis, J. R. (2020) · Nature Reviews Disease Primers · doi:10.1038/s41572-020-00224-3 · Cited by 4,458
Pembrolizumab as Second-Line Therapy for Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma
Bellmunt, J., de Wit, R., Vaughn, D. J., Fradet, Y., Lee, J.-L., Fong, L., Vogelzang, N. J., Climent, M. A., Petrylak, D. P., Choueiri, T. K., et al. (2017) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1613683 · Cited by 3,395
Metadata
- Authors
- Ferris, R. L., Blumenschein, G., Fayette, J., Guigay, J., Colevas, A. D., Licitra, L., Harrington, K., Kasper, S., Vokes, E. E., Even, C., Worden, F., Saba, N. F., Iglesias Docampo, L. C., Haddad, R., Rordorf, T., Kiyota, N., Tahara, M., Monga, M., Lynch, M., Geese, W. J., Kopit, J., Shaw, J. W., & Gillison, M. L.
- Affiliations
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (US)
- ORCID
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 2016-11-10
- Volume
- 375
- Issue
- 19
- Pages
- 1856-1867
- ISSN
- 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4406
- PMC
- PMC5564292
- OpenAlex
- W2529484692
- Cited by
- 5,101
- References
- 26
- Citations by year
- 2026: 358 · 2025: 461 · 2024: 500 · 2023: 490 · 2022: 574 · 2021: 687 · 2020: 617 · 2019: 543 · 2018: 486 · 2017: 358 · 2016: 17
- FWCI
- 452.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- New England Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Archivio Istituzionale della Ricerca (Universita Degli Studi Di Milano) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Universitätsbibliographie, Universität Duisburg-Essen (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Bristol-Myers Squibb
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (NF-SI-0515-10101)
- Ono Pharmaceutical
- National Cancer Institute (P50CA097190, R01CA206517)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Otorhinolaryngology › Head and Neck Cancer Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Dermatology › Nonmelanoma Skin Cancer Studies
- Keywords
- nivolumab, PD-1 inhibitors, immune checkpoint inhibitors, platinum-refractory disease, overall survival, progression-free survival, objective response rate, quality of life, treatment-related adverse events, cetuximab, docetaxel, methotrexate, single-agent chemotherapy, metastatic head and neck cancer, immunotherapy
- MeSH terms
- Nivolumab, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Antibodies, Monoclonal, Antineoplastic Agents, Carcinoma, Squamous Cell, Female, Head and Neck Neoplasms, Humans, Male, Neoplasm Recurrence, Local, Quality of Life, Survival Analysis, B7-H1 Antigen
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
