↓ Skip to main content

Safety and efficacy of vismodegib in patients with basal cell carcinoma nevus syndrome: pooled analysis of two trials

Overview of attention for article published in Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Safety and efficacy of vismodegib in patients with basal cell carcinoma nevus syndrome: pooled analysis of two trials
Published in
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13023-016-0506-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anne Lynn S. Chang, Sarah T. Arron, Michael R. Migden, James A. Solomon, Simon Yoo, Bann-Mo Day, Edward F. McKenna, Aleksandar Sekulic

Abstract

Aberrant activation of the Hedgehog (Hh) pathway is a key driver in the pathogenesis of basal cell carcinomas (BCCs), including patients with BCC nevus syndrome (BCCNS). It is unclear whether BCCs arising in patients with BCCNS respond differently to vismodegib than in patients without BCCNS. We examined the best overall response rate (BORR) and adverse events (AEs) of vismodegib in patients with advanced BCC (aBCC) with and without BCCNS. Patients were treated with vismodegib 150 mg/day in the ERIVANCE BCC trial (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00833417) and the expanded access study (EAS; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01160250). BCCNS diagnosis was based on medical history at the time of enrollment. Metastatic BCC response was evaluated using Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors, version 1.0 (RECIST v1.0) in both studies. Locally advanced BCC was evaluated by a novel composite end point in ERIVANCE BCC and by RECIST v1.0 in the EAS. Response assessments were performed every 8 weeks in ERIVANCE BCC and every 8-16 weeks in the EAS. Safety assessments (National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 3.0) were performed monthly in both trials. Because of described differences in response assessment/schedule, patients with BCCNS were not pooled across trials. Analytic cohorts for BCCNS and sporadic aBCC were created within each trial for comparison using descriptive statistical methods. Forty-one patients with BCCNS were included in the study: 22 from ERIVANCE BCC and 19 from the EAS. Investigator-assessed BORR in BCCNS groups ranged from 31 to 81 % in patients with locally advanced BCC (n = 33) and was 50 % in patients with metastatic BCC (n = 6). These results were comparable with the non-BCCNS groups. Incidence and severity of AEs were also comparable between the BCCNS and non-BCCNS groups. Amenorrhea was observed in both patient cohorts and was reversible in two patients who discontinued treatment. Vismodegib demonstrated comparable efficacy and safety against aBCC in patients with and without BCCNS.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 3%
Unknown 38 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 6 15%
Researcher 4 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Professor 2 5%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 18 46%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 49%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 5%
Unknown 18 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 September 2016.
All research outputs
#15,683,389
of 23,305,591 outputs
Outputs from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#1,832
of 2,673 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#217,167
of 338,919 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#21
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,305,591 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,673 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 338,919 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.