↓ Skip to main content

Optimizing bevacizumab dosing in glioblastoma: less is more

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Neuro-Oncology, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
Title
Optimizing bevacizumab dosing in glioblastoma: less is more
Published in
Journal of Neuro-Oncology, June 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11060-017-2553-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Abdulrazag Ajlan, Piia Thomas, Abdulrahman Albakr, Seema Nagpal, Lawrence Recht

Abstract

Compared to traditional chemotherapies, where dose limiting toxicities represent the maximum possible dose, monoclonal antibody therapies are used at doses well below maximum tolerated dose. However, there has been little effort to ascertain whether there is a submaximal dose at which the efficacy/complication ratio is maximized. Thus, despite the general practice of using Bevacizumab (BEV) at dosages of 10 mg/kg every other week for glioma patients, there has not been much prior work examining whether the relatively high complication rates reported with this agent can be decreased by lowering the dose without impairing efficacy. We assessed charts from 80 patients who received BEV for glioblastoma to survey the incidence of complications relative to BEV dose. All patients were treated with standard upfront chemoradiation. The toxicity was graded based on the NCI CTCAE, version 4.03. The rate of BEV serious related adverse events was 12.5% (n = 10/80). There were no serious adverse events (≥grade 3) when the administered dose was (<3 mg/kg/week), compared to a 21% incidence in those who received higher doses (≥3 mg/kg/week) (P < 0.01). Importantly, the three patient deaths attributable to BEV administration occurred in patients receiving higher doses. Patients who received lower doses also had a better survival rate, although this did not reach statistical significance [median OS 39 for low dose group vs. 17.3 for high dose group (P = 0.07)]. Lower rates of serious BEV related toxicities are noted when lower dosages are used without diminishing positive clinical impact. Further work aimed at optimizing BEV dosage is justified.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 22%
Researcher 3 11%
Other 1 4%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 4%
Student > Bachelor 1 4%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 12 44%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 30%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 7%
Psychology 1 4%
Physics and Astronomy 1 4%
Neuroscience 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 14 52%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 23 June 2019.
All research outputs
#6,440,597
of 25,311,095 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neuro-Oncology
#741
of 3,244 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,915
of 320,812 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neuro-Oncology
#10
of 88 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,311,095 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,244 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 320,812 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 88 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.