↓ Skip to main content

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III study of ixazomib plus lenalidomide-dexamethasone in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: China Continuation study

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Hematology & Oncology, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
68 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
98 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
Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III study of ixazomib plus lenalidomide-dexamethasone in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: China Continuation study
Published in
Journal of Hematology & Oncology, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13045-017-0501-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jian Hou, Jie Jin, Yan Xu, Depei Wu, Xiaoyan Ke, Daobin Zhou, Jin Lu, Xin Du, Xiequn Chen, Junmin Li, Jing Liu, Neeraj Gupta, Michael J. Hanley, Hongmei Li, Zhaowei Hua, Bingxia Wang, Xiaoquan Zhang, Hui Wang, Helgi van de Velde, Paul G. Richardson, Philippe Moreau

Abstract

The China Continuation study was a separate regional expansion of the global, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized phase III TOURMALINE-MM1 study of ixazomib plus lenalidomide-dexamethasone (Rd) in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) following one to three prior therapies. Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive ixazomib 4.0 mg or placebo on days 1, 8, and 15, plus lenalidomide 25 mg on days 1-21 and dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22, in 28-day cycles. Randomization was stratified according to number of prior therapies, disease stage, and prior proteasome inhibitor exposure. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). In total, 115 Chinese patients were randomized (57 ixazomib-Rd, 58 placebo-Rd). At the preplanned final analysis for PFS, after median PFS follow-up of 7.4 and 6.9 months, respectively, PFS was improved with ixazomib-Rd versus placebo-Rd (median 6.7 vs 4.0 months; HR 0.598; p = 0.035). At the preplanned final analysis of overall survival (OS), after median follow-up of 20.2 and 19.1 months, respectively, OS was improved with ixazomib-Rd versus placebo-Rd (median 25.8 vs 15.8 months; HR 0.419; p = 0.001). On the ixazomib-Rd and placebo-Rd arms, respectively, 38 (67%) and 43 (74%) patients reported grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs), 19 (33%) and 18 (31%) reported serious AEs, and 4 (7%) and 5 (9%) died on-study. The most frequent grade 3/4 AEs were thrombocytopenia (18%/7% vs 14%/5%), neutropenia (19%/5% vs 19%/2%), and anemia (12%/0 vs 26%/2%). This study demonstrated that PFS and OS were significantly improved with ixazomib-Rd versus placebo-Rd, with limited additional toxicity, in patients with RRMM. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01564537.

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 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 98 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 14 14%
Researcher 12 12%
Student > Bachelor 10 10%
Student > Master 9 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Other 18 18%
Unknown 30 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 39%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Other 9 9%
Unknown 32 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 01 June 2023.
All research outputs
#4,093,162
of 22,953,506 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Hematology & Oncology
#309
of 1,194 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,325
of 313,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Hematology & Oncology
#6
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,953,506 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,194 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 313,323 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.