↓ Skip to main content

Systematic review of ixabepilone for treating metastatic breast cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Breast Cancer, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
Title
Systematic review of ixabepilone for treating metastatic breast cancer
Published in
Breast Cancer, August 2016
DOI 10.1007/s12282-016-0717-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jing Li, Jing Ren, Wenxia Sun

Abstract

Ixabepilone is now a Food and Drug Administration-approved therapeutic option for patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) whose disease has progressed despite prior anthracycline and taxane therapy. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of ixabepilone for treating metastatic breast cancer. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted. Randomized controlled studies applying ixabepilone for treating MBC were included. The primary outcome was Overall Survival (OS). The authors of primary articles were contacted and methodological quality was evaluated. Subgroups were drawn based on intervention measures; heterogeneity and bias were discussed. Eight studies with 5247 patients were included. Compared with a weekly schedule, a triweekly schedule of ixabepilone was better at improving overall response rate (ORR), while there were no differences in improving OS and progression-free survival (PFS). Ixabepilone plus capecitabine was superior to capecitabine monotherapy in improving OS, PFS and ORR. Paclitaxel was more effective than ixabepilone in terms of OS and PFS. There was no difference in the improvement of ORR, clinical benefit rate (CBR) and disease control rate (DCR) between ixabepilone and eribulin. Current evidence suggests that a triweekly schedule of ixabepilone is more effective than weekly dosing in improving ORR. Use of ixabepilone in combination with capecitabine possesses superior clinical efficacy to the use of capecitabine alone. Paclitaxel was more effective than ixabepilone in terms of OS and PFS. The efficacy and safety between ixabepilone and eribulin were identical.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 14%
Student > Bachelor 6 14%
Student > Postgraduate 4 9%
Student > Master 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 15 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 32%
Chemistry 4 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 17 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 25 August 2016.
All research outputs
#16,046,765
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Breast Cancer
#293
of 654 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#231,171
of 381,908 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Breast Cancer
#2
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 654 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 381,908 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.