↓ Skip to main content

The effectiveness and safety of platinum-based pemetrexed and platinum-based gemcitabine treatment in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 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
The effectiveness and safety of platinum-based pemetrexed and platinum-based gemcitabine treatment in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma
Published in
BMC Cancer, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12885-015-1519-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Guntulu Ak, Selma Metintas, Muhittin Akarsu, Muzaffer Metintas

Abstract

We aimed to evaluate the efficiency and safety of cis/carboplatin plus gemcitabine, which was previously used for mesothelioma but with no recorded proof of its efficiency, compared with cis/carboplatin plus pemetrexed, which is known to be effective in mesothelioma, in comparable historical groups of malignant pleural mesothelioma. One hundred and sixteen patients received cis/carboplatin plus pemetrexed (group 1), while 30 patients received cis/carboplatin plus gemcitabine (group 2) between June 1999 and June 2012. The two groups were compared in terms of median survival and adverse events to chemotherapy. The mean ages of groups 1 and 2 were 60.7 and 60.8 years, respectively. Most of the patients (78.1 %) had epithelial type tumors, and 47 % of the patients had stage IV disease. There was no difference between the two groups in terms of age, gender, asbestos exposure, histology, stage, Karnofsky performance status, presence of pleurodesis, prophylactic radiotherapy, second-line chemotherapy and median hemoglobin and serum albumin levels. The median survival time from diagnosis to death or the last day of follow up with a 95 % confidence interval was 12 ± 0.95 months (95 % CI: 10.15-13.85) for group 1 and 11.0 ± 1.09 months (95 % CI: 8.85-13.15) for group 2 (Log-Rank: 0.142; p = 0.706). The median survival time from treatment to death or the last day of follow-up with a 95 % confidence interval was 11.0 ± 0.99 months (95 % CI: 9.06-12.94) for group 1 and 11.0 ± 1.52 months (95 % CI: 8.02-13.97) for group 2 (Log-Rank: 0.584; p = 0.445). The stage and Karnofsky performance status were found to be significant variables on median survival time by univariate analysis. After adjusting for the stage and Karnofsky performance status, the chemotherapy schema was not impressive on median survival time (OR: 0.837; 95 % CI: 0.548-1.277; p = 0.409). The progression free survival was 7.0 ± 0.61 months for group I and 6.0 ± 1.56 months for group II (Log-Rank: 0.522; p = 0.470). The treatment was generally well tolerated, and the side effects were similar in both groups. The study indicates that platinum-based gemcitabine is effective and a safe schema in malignant pleural mesothelioma. Further research should include large randomized phase III trials comparing these agents.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 32%
Student > Master 4 18%
Other 3 14%
Researcher 2 9%
Lecturer 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 4 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 27%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 6 27%
Attention Score in Context

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 09 July 2015.
All research outputs
#17,765,638
of 22,816,807 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#4,962
of 8,300 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#176,256
of 262,224 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#106
of 151 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,816,807 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 262,224 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 151 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.