↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
43 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.
Article details
Title
Cyclophosphamide‐based stem cell mobilization in relapsed multiple myeloma patients: A subgroup analysis from the phase III trial ReLApsE
Published in
European Journal of Haematology, May 2017
DOI 10.1111/ejh.12888
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Analysis of the efficiency and toxicity of cyclophosphamide based stem cell mobilization in patients with relapsed mulitple myeloma (RMM). Peripheral blood stem cells were mobilized with high dose cyclophosphamide (2 g /m(2) daily on days 1 and 2) and G-CSF plus pre-emptive/rescue plerixafor in RMM patients (1(st) to 3(rd) relapse) treated within the ReLApsE trial of the German-Speaking Myeloma Multicenter Group (GMMG). Mobilization was initiated with high dose cyclophosphamide and G-CSF in 30 patients. Fifteen patients received additional pre-emptive/rescue administration of plerixafor. Stem cell collection was successful (≥ 2 x10(6)  CD34+ cells /kg bw) in 77% (23/30 patients). Patients with prior high dose melphalan collected a significantly lower median total number of PBSCs than patients without prior high dose melphalan (3.3 x10(6) vs. 17 x10(6) CD34+ cells /kg bw). Toxicity of high dose cyclophosphamide was frequent with 12 serious adverse events (SAE) in 37% of patients (11/30 patients). Infections accounted for the majority of SAE reports. In two patients SAEs were lethal (septic shock). These data proof feasibility of PBSC collection at relapse but emphasize the importance of collection and storage of additional PBSC transplants during first-line treatment when mobilization is more efficient and less toxic. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
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 demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 7 16%
Student > Bachelor 6 14%
Lecturer 3 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Student > Master 3 7%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 16 37%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 16 37%
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 27 March 2018.
All research outputs
#21,652,722
of 27,387,710 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Haematology
#1,688
of 2,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#245,147
of 333,892 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Haematology
#16
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,387,710 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,156 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 333,892 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.