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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
SAKK 24/09: safety and tolerability of bevacizumab plus paclitaxel vs. bevacizumab plus metronomic cyclophosphamide and capecitabine as first-line therapy in patients with HER2-negative advanced stage breast cancer - a multicenter, randomized phase III trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Cancer, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12885-016-2823-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Christoph Rochlitz, Martin Bigler, Roger von Moos, Jürg Bernhard, Klazien Matter-Walstra, Andreas Wicki, Khalil Zaman, Sandro Anchisi, Marc Küng, Kyung-Jae Na, Daniela Bärtschi, Markus Borner, Tamara Rordorf, Daniel Rauch, Andreas Müller, Thomas Ruhstaller, Marcus Vetter, Andreas Trojan, Ursula Hasler-Strub, Richard Cathomas, Ralph Winterhalder, on behalf of the Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK) |
| Abstract |
Adding bevacizumab to chemotherapy improves response rates and progression-free survival (PFS) in metastatic breast cancer (mBC). We aimed to demonstrate decreased toxicity with metronomic chemotherapy/bevacizumab compared with paclitaxel/bevacizumab. This multicenter, randomized phase III trial compared bevacizumab with either paclitaxel (arm A) or daily oral capecitabine-cyclophosphamide (arm B) as first-line treatment in patients with HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. The primary endpoint was the incidence of selected grade 3-5 adverse events (AE) including: febrile neutropenia, infection, sensory/motor neuropathy, and mucositis. Secondary endpoints included objective response rate, disease control rate, PFS, overall survival (OS), quality of life (QoL), and pharmacoeconomics. The study was registered prospectively with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01131195 on May 25, 2010. Between September 2010 and December 2012, 147 patients were included at 22 centers. The incidence of primary endpoint-defining AEs was similar in arm A (25 % [18/71]; 95 % CI 15-35 %) and arm B (24 % [16/68]; 95 % CI 13-34 %; P = 0.96). Objective response rates were 58 % (42/73; 95 % CI 0.46-0.69) and 50 % (37/74; 95 % CI 0.39-0.61) in arms A and B, respectively (P = 0.45). Median PFS was 10.3 months (95 % CI 8.7-11.3) in arm A and 8.5 months (95 % CI 6.5-11.9) in arm B (P = 0.90). Other secondary efficacy endpoints were not significantly different between study arms. The only statistically significant differences in QoL were less hair loss and less numbness in arm B. Treatment costs between the two arms were equivalent. This trial failed to meet its primary endpoint of a reduced rate of prespecified grade 3-5 AEs with metronomic bevacizumab, cyclophosphamide and capecitabine. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 91 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 15 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 11% |
| Other | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 8% |
| Researcher | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 13 | 14% |
| Unknown | 32 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 25% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 9 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 4% |
| Psychology | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 7 | 8% |
| Unknown | 38 | 42% |
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 16 October 2016.
All research outputs
#20,346,264
of 22,893,031 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#6,510
of 8,328 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#277,086
of 320,105 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#99
of 144 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,893,031 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,328 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 320,105 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 144 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.