↓ Skip to main content

A meta-analysis of CAG (cytarabine, aclarubicin, G-CSF) regimen for the treatment of 1029 patients with acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndrome

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Hematology & Oncology, November 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
68 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
A meta-analysis of CAG (cytarabine, aclarubicin, G-CSF) regimen for the treatment of 1029 patients with acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndrome
Published in
Journal of Hematology & Oncology, November 2011
DOI 10.1186/1756-8722-4-46
Pubmed ID
Authors

Guoqing Wei, Wanmao Ni, Jen-wei Chiao, Zhen Cai, He Huang, Delong Liu

Abstract

The regimen of cytarabine, aclarubicin and G-CSF (CAG) has been widely used in China and Japan for treatment of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). We searched literature on CAG between 1995 and 2010 and performed a meta-analysis to determine its overall efficacy using a random-effects or fixed-effects model. Thirty five trials with a total of 1029 AML (n = 814) and MDS (n = 215) patients were included for analysis. The CR rate of AML (57.9%) was significantly higher than that of MDS (45.7%) (p < 0.01). No difference in CR was noted between the new (56.7%) and relapsed/refractory AML (60.1%) (p > 0.05). The CR rate was also significantly higher in patients with favorable (64.5%) and intermediate (69.6%) karyotypes than those with unfavorable one (29.5%) (p < 0.05). Remarkably, the CR rate of CAG was significantly higher than those of non-CAG regimens (odds ratio 2.43). CAG regimen was well tolerated, with cardiotoxicity in 2.3% and early death in 5.2% of the cases. In conclusion, CAG regimen was an effective and safe regimen for the treatment of AML, and may be more effective than non-CAG regimens. Randomized controlled trials are strongly recommended to evaluate its efficacy and safety in comparison with the current standard treatment.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 2 3%
Netherlands 1 1%
Unknown 65 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 18%
Researcher 12 18%
Other 9 13%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 9%
Other 13 19%
Unknown 9 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 41 60%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 6%
Psychology 2 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 9 13%
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 18 November 2011.
All research outputs
#20,150,151
of 22,656,971 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Hematology & Oncology
#1,032
of 1,187 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#129,717
of 141,521 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Hematology & Oncology
#8
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,656,971 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,187 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 141,521 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.