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 |
Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of lanreotide in combination with targeted therapies in patients with neuroendocrine tumours in clinical practice: a retrospective cross-sectional analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Cancer, July 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12885-015-1512-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jaume Capdevila, Isabel Sevilla, Vicente Alonso, Luís Antón Aparicio, Paula Jiménez Fonseca, Enrique Grande, Juan José Reina, José Luís Manzano, Juan Domingo Alonso Lájara, Jorge Barriuso, Daniel Castellano, Javier Medina, Carlos López, Ángel Segura, Sergio Carrera, Guillermo Crespo, José Fuster, Javier Munarriz, Pilar García Alfonso |
| Abstract |
Based on the mechanism of action, combining somatostatin analogues (SSAs) with mTOR inhibitors or antiangiogenic agents may provide synergistic effects for the treatment of patients with neuroendocrine tumours (NETs). Herein, we investigate the use of these treatment combinations in clinical practice. This retrospective cross-sectional analysis of patients with NETs treated with the SSA lanreotide and targeted therapies at 35 Spanish hospitals evaluated the efficacy and safety of lanreotide treatment combinations in clinical practice. The data of 159 treatment combinations with lanreotide in 133 patients was retrospectively collected. Of the 133 patients, with a median age of 59.4 (16-83) years, 70 (52.6 %) patients were male, 64 (48.1 %) had pancreatic NET, 23 (17.3 %) had ECOG PS ≥2, 41 (30.8 %) had functioning tumours, 63 (47.7 %) underwent surgery of the primary tumour, 45 (33.8 %) had received prior chemotherapy, and 115 (86.5 %) had received prior SSAs. 115 patients received 1 lanreotide treatment combination and 18 patients received between 2 and 5 combinations. Lanreotide was mainly administered in combination with everolimus (73 combinations) or sunitinib (61 combinations). The probability of being progression-free was 78.5 % (6 months), 68.6 % (12 months) and 57.0 % (18 months) for patients who only received everolimus plus lanreotide (n = 57) and 89.3 % (6 months), 73.0 % (12 months), and 67.4 % (18 months) for patients who only received sunitinib and lanreotide (n = 50). In patients who only received everolimus plus lanreotide the median time-to-progression from the initiation of lanreotide combination treatment was 25.8 months (95 % CI, 11.3, 40.3) and it had not yet been reached among the subgroup of patients only receiving sunitinib plus lanreotide. The safety profile of the combination treatment was comparable to that of the targeted agent alone. The combination of lanreotide and targeted therapies, mainly everolimus and sunitinib, is widely used in clinical practice without unexpected toxicities and suggests efficacy that should be explored in randomized prospective clinical trials. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 35 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 19% |
| Other | 6 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 11% |
| Librarian | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 17% |
| Unknown | 9 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 44% |
| Engineering | 2 | 6% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 13 | 36% |
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 15 April 2016.
All research outputs
#15,339,713
of 22,816,807 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#4,109
of 8,300 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#153,651
of 262,801 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#90
of 156 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,816,807 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 8,300 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 262,801 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 156 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.