↓ Skip to main content

Pooled safety analyses of ALK-TKI inhibitor in ALK-positive NSCLC

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 tweeters
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 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
Pooled safety analyses of ALK-TKI inhibitor in ALK-positive NSCLC
Published in
BMC Cancer, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12885-017-3405-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Qian Zhu, Hao Hu, De-Sheng Weng, Xiao-Fei Zhang, Chang-Long Chen, Zi-Qi Zhou, Yan Tang, Jian-Chuan Xia

Abstract

The anaplastic lymphoma kinase tyrosine kinase inhibitors (ALK-TKIs) have been administered to patients with ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer for a long period of time and show a promising response. However, the differences in the toxicity profiles among these drugs are still unclear. We performed a comprehensive search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, WEB OF SCIENCE and COCHRANE databases from the drugs' inception to May 2016 to identify clinical trials. Severe adverse events (AEs) (grade ≥ 3) based on the ALK-TKI type were analysed. Seventeen trials published between 2011 and 2016, including a total of 1826 patients, were eligible for analysis. Patients in 10 trials (n = 1000) received crizotinib, patients in 5 trials (n = 601) received ceritinib and patients in 2 trials (n = 225) received alectinib. The overall frequencies of treatment-related death and AEs due to treatment withdrawal were 0.9% (12/1365) and 5.5% (85/1543), respectively. Moreover, the frequency of severe AEs in patients treated with ceritinib was significantly higher than patients treated with crizotinib or alectinib, especially for hepatotoxicity, fatigue and some of gastrointestinal symptoms. Additionally, significant difference in the elevated lipase and amylase levels (grade ≥ 3) were detected between ceritinib and crizotinib/alectinib, whereas neutropenia was less frequent. ALK-TKIs were safe for ALK-positive patients. Moreover, statistically significant differences in some severe AEs among ceritinib, crizotinib and alectinib were detected in present study.

Twitter Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 48 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 14%
Other 6 12%
Student > Postgraduate 5 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 13 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 24%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Chemistry 2 4%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 21 43%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 26 September 2018.
All research outputs
#4,588,489
of 17,364,317 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#1,081
of 6,314 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,976
of 278,049 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,364,317 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,314 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
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 278,049 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them