↓ Skip to main content

Efficacy of palonosetron to prevent delayed nausea and vomiting in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma patients undergoing repeated cycles of the CHOP regimen

Overview of attention for article published in Supportive Care in Cancer, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
90 Mendeley
Title
Efficacy of palonosetron to prevent delayed nausea and vomiting in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma patients undergoing repeated cycles of the CHOP regimen
Published in
Supportive Care in Cancer, August 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00520-017-3845-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bungo Saito, Hidetoshi Nakashima, Maasa Abe, So Murai, Yuta Baba, Nana Arai, Yukiko Kawaguchi, Shun Fujiwara, Nobuyuki Kabasawa, Hiroyuki Tsukamoto, Yui Uto, Hirotsugu Ariizumi, Kouji Yanagisawa, Norimichi Hattori, Hiroshi Harada, Tsuyoshi Nakamaki

Abstract

Few studies have investigated the effect of palonosetron on delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in lymphoma patients receiving the CHOP regimen. We conducted a prospective clinical trial to assess the efficacy of palonosetron in patients receiving the CHOP regimen. Complete control (CC: emesis-free and mild nausea) during delayed phase (24-120 h) was the primary endpoint. The secondary endpoint was complete response (CR: emesis-free) during acute (0-24 h), delayed, and overall phases (0-120 h), and CC during acute and overall phases. Palonosetron (0.75 mg) was administered before chemotherapy on day 1 of both the first and second CHOP cycles. The efficacy of palonosetron in preventing emesis was evaluated in 40 patients. Across two cycles, over 85% of patients achieved CR. As the primary endpoint, the proportion of patients achieving CC in the delayed phase increased from 70% (cycle 1) to 85% (cycle 2). CR rate in the delayed phase increased from 85% (cycle 1) to 95% (cycle 2). These results suggest that the antiemetic effects during the delayed phase were inferior to those in the acute phase during the first cycle. However, even at the same dose of palonosetron, CR and CC rates increased in the second cycle.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 90 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 24%
Researcher 11 12%
Student > Master 11 12%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 11 12%
Unknown 23 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 27 30%
Psychology 7 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 17 19%
Unknown 27 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 August 2017.
All research outputs
#4,218,829
of 22,996,001 outputs
Outputs from Supportive Care in Cancer
#971
of 4,639 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,988
of 317,618 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Supportive Care in Cancer
#25
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,996,001 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,639 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. 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 317,618 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 67 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.