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 |
Clinical safety of combined therapy of immune checkpoint inhibitors and Viscum album L. therapy in patients with advanced or metastatic cancer
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12906-017-2045-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anja Thronicke, Megan L. Steele, Christian Grah, Burkhard Matthes, Friedemann Schad |
| Abstract |
Despite improvement of tumour response rates in patients with progressive and metastatic cancer, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICM) induce toxicities in cancer patients. Viscum album L. (VA, mistletoe) extracts are applied as add-on cancer therapy especially in German speaking countries and within integrative and anthroposophical concepts with the goal to improve quality of life. The primary objective of this pilot observational cohort study was to determine the rate of adverse events (AE) related to ICM therapy with and without VA in patients with advanced or metastatic cancer in a certified Cancer Center. ICM or combined ICM/VA therapies were applied in patients with progressive or metastatic cancer. AE rates of both therapy groups were compared. A total of sixteen cancer patients were treated with ICM: nivolumab (75%), ipilimumab (19%) or pembrolizumab (6%). The median age of the study population was 64 years (IQR 57.8; 69.3); 44% were male. Of the sixteen patients receiving ICM, nine patients received additional VA (56%; ICM/VA group) and seven did not (44%; ICM group). No statistically significant differences were seen between groups with respect to AE-rates (67% ICM/VA versus 71% ICM). Adjusted multivariate regression analysis revealed that concomitant application of VA did not alter the AE rate in ICM treated patients. 85% of AEs were expected ICM reactions. No AEs of grade 3 or greater were documented for the total study cohort. This is the first study evaluating the clinical safety profile of ICM in combination with VA in patients with advanced or metastatic cancer. The overall AE rate of the study cohort is comparable to AE rates of ICM treatment in the literature. Our data indicate a first impression that concomitant VA application may not alter ICM-induced AE rates. However, the nature of this study does not allow excluding possible immunological interactions between ICM and VA. Further prospective trials in larger study cohorts should focus on the assessment of safety aspects, clinical efficacy and health related quality of life in patients with combined ICM/VA therapy. DRKS00013335 , retrospectively registered (November 27th, 2017) at the German Clinical Trials Register ( www.drks.de ). |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 61 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 11 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 13% |
| Other | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 8% |
| Unknown | 20 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 26% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 8 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Unknown | 26 | 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 16 November 2020.
All research outputs
#6,520,622
of 23,967,950 outputs
Outputs from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#1,036
of 3,746 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#125,430
of 445,041 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#35
of 95 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,967,950 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,746 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 445,041 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 95 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.