Overall Survival with Combined Nivolumab and Ipilimumab in Advanced Melanoma

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Nivolumab combined with ipilimumab resulted in longer progression-free survival and a higher objective response rate than ipilimumab alone in a phase 3 trial involving patients with advanced melanoma. We now report 3-year overall survival outcomes in this trial.

Related collections

Most cited references 2

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Combined nivolumab and ipilimumab versus ipilimumab alone in patients with advanced melanoma: 2-year overall survival outcomes in a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial.

F. Stephen Hodi, Jason Chesney, Anna C Pavlick … (2016)

Results from phase 2 and 3 trials in patients with advanced melanoma have shown significant improvements in the proportion of patients achieving an objective response and prolonged progression-free survival with the combination of nivolumab (an anti-PD-1 antibody) plus ipilimumab (an anti-CTLA-4 antibody) compared with ipilimumab alone. We report 2-year overall survival data from a randomised controlled trial assessing this treatment in previously untreated advanced melanoma.

0 comments Cited 412 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Measuring diagnostic and predictive accuracy in disease management: an introduction to receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis.

Ariel Linden (2006)

Diagnostic or predictive accuracy concerns are common in all phases of a disease management (DM) programme, and ultimately play an influential role in the assessment of programme effectiveness. Areas, such as the identification of diseased patients, predictive modelling of future health status and costs and risk stratification, are just a few of the domains in which assessment of accuracy is beneficial, if not critical. The most commonly used analytical model for this purpose is the standard 2 x 2 table method in which sensitivity and specificity are calculated. However, there are several limitations to this approach, including the reliance on a single defined criterion or cut-off for determining a true-positive result, use of non-standardized measurement instruments and sensitivity to outcome prevalence. This paper introduces the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis as a more appropriate and useful technique for assessing diagnostic and predictive accuracy in DM. Its advantages include; testing accuracy across the entire range of scores and thereby not requiring a predetermined cut-off point, easily examined visual and statistical comparisons across tests or scores, and independence from outcome prevalence. Therefore the implementation of ROC as an evaluation tool should be strongly considered in the various phases of a DM programme.

0 comments Cited 129 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Journal

Title: New England Journal of Medicine

Abbreviated Title: N Engl J Med

Publisher: Massachusetts Medical Society

ISSN (Print): 0028-4793

ISSN (Electronic): 1533-4406

Publication date Created: October 05 2017

Publication date (Print): October 05 2017

Volume: 377

Issue: 14

Pages: 1345-1356

Affiliations

[1 ]From the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Weill Cornell Medical College, New York (J.D.W., M.A.P., M.K.C.); Oncology Institute of Veneto Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS), Padua (V.C.-S.), European Institute of Oncology, Milan (P.F.F.), Center for Immuno-Oncology, University Hospital of Siena, Istituto Toscano Tumori, Siena (M.M.), the Immunotherapy and Somatic Cell Therapy Unit, IRCCS Istituto Scientifico Romagnolo per lo Studio e la Cura dei Tumori, Meldola (M.G.),...

Article

DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1709684

PubMed ID: 28889792

SO-VID: 50cbcd65-3f3a-4a6a-a214-6e2aa5eb264b

History

Data availability:

Comments

Comment on this article

scite_

Cited by 1,451

See all cited by

Most referenced authors 352

See all reference authors

- Version 1