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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Overall survival benefit for sequential doxorubicin–docetaxel compared with concurrent doxorubicin and docetaxel in node-positive breast cancer—8-year results of the Breast International Group 02-98 phase III trial †
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of Oncology, January 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1093/annonc/mds627 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
C. Oakman, P.A. Francis, J. Crown, E. Quinaux, M. Buyse, E. De Azambuja, M. Margeli Vila, M. Andersson, B. Nordenskjöld, R. Jakesz, B. Thürlimann, J. Gutiérrez, V. Harvey, L. Punzalan, P. Dell'Orto, D. Larsimont, I. Steinberg, R.D. Gelber, M. Piccart-Gebhart, G. Viale, A. Di Leo |
| Abstract |
Background In women with node-positive breast cancer, the Breast International Group (BIG) 02-98 tested the incorporation of docetaxel (Taxotere) into doxorubicin (Adriamycin)-based chemotherapy, and compared sequential and concurrent docetaxel. At 5 years, there was a trend for improved disease-free survival (DFS) with docetaxel. We present results at 8-year median follow-up and exploratory analyses within biologically defined subtypes. Methods Patients were randomly assigned to one of four treatments: (i) sequential control: doxorubicin (A) (75 mg/m(2)) × 4 →classical cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, 5-fluorouracil (CMF); (ii) concurrent control: doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide (AC)(60/600 mg/m(2)) × 4 →CMF; (iii) sequential docetaxel: A (75 mg/m(2)) × 3 → docetaxel (T) (100 mg/m(2)) × 3 → CMF and (iv) concurrent docetaxel: AT(50/75 mg/m(2)) × 4 →CMF. The primary comparison evaluated docetaxel efficacy regardless of the schedule. Exploratory analyses were undertaken within biologically defined subtypes. Results Two thousand eight hundred and eighty-seven patients were enrolled. After 93.4 months of median follow-up, there were 916 DFS events. For the primary comparison, there was no significant improvement in DFS from docetaxel [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.80-1.05, P = 0.187]. In secondary comparisons, sequential docetaxel significantly improved DFS compared with sequential control (HR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.67-0.99, P = 0.036), and significantly improved DFS (HR = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.72-0.99, P = 0.035) and overall survival (OS) (HR = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.65-0.98, P = 0.028) compared with concurrent doxorubicin-docetaxel. Luminal-A disease had the best prognosis. HRs favored addition of sequential docetaxel in all subtypes, except luminal-A; but this observation was not statistically supported because of limited numbers. Conclusion With further follow-up, the sequential docetaxel schedule resulted in significantly better OS than concurrent doxorubicin-docetaxel, and continued to show better DFS than sequential doxorubicin-based control. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Ecuador | 2 | 3% |
| Unknown | 60 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 10% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 11 | 18% |
| Unknown | 21 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 40% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 3% |
| Psychology | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Unknown | 21 | 34% |
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 04 June 2013.
All research outputs
#22,758,309
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Oncology
#7,251
of 7,854 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#258,261
of 288,794 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Oncology
#64
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 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 7,854 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. 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 288,794 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 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.