↓ Skip to main content

Interim results from the CATNON trial (EORTC study 26053-22054) of treatment with concurrent and adjuvant temozolomide for 1p/19q non-co-deleted anaplastic glioma: a phase 3, randomised, open-label…

Overview of attention for article published in The Lancet, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
61 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
309 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
334 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.
Title
Interim results from the CATNON trial (EORTC study 26053-22054) of treatment with concurrent and adjuvant temozolomide for 1p/19q non-co-deleted anaplastic glioma: a phase 3, randomised, open-label intergroup study
Published in
The Lancet, August 2017
DOI 10.1016/s0140-6736(17)31442-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Martin J van den Bent, Brigitta Baumert, Sara C Erridge, Michael A Vogelbaum, Anna K Nowak, Marc Sanson, Alba Ariela Brandes, Paul M Clement, Jean Francais Baurain, Warren P Mason, Helen Wheeler, Olivier L Chinot, Sanjeev Gill, Matthew Griffin, David G Brachman, Walter Taal, Roberta Rudà, Michael Weller, Catherine McBain, Jaap Reijneveld, Roelien H Enting, Damien C Weber, Thierry Lesimple, Susan Clenton, Anja Gijtenbeek, Sarah Pascoe, Ulrich Herrlinger, Peter Hau, Frederic Dhermain, Irene van Heuvel, Roger Stupp, Ken Aldape, Robert B Jenkins, Hendrikus Jan Dubbink, Winand N M Dinjens, Pieter Wesseling, Sarah Nuyens, Vassilis Golfinopoulos, Thierry Gorlia, Wolfgang Wick, Johan M Kros

Abstract

The role of temozolomide chemotherapy in newly diagnosed 1p/19q non-co-deleted anaplastic gliomas, which are associated with lower sensitivity to chemotherapy and worse prognosis than 1p/19q co-deleted tumours, is unclear. We assessed the use of radiotherapy with concurrent and adjuvant temozolomide in adults with non-co-deleted anaplastic gliomas. This was a phase 3, randomised, open-label study with a 2 × 2 factorial design. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had newly diagnosed non-co-deleted anaplastic glioma with WHO performance status scores of 0-2. The randomisation schedule was generated with the electronic EORTC web-based ORTA system. Patients were assigned in equal numbers (1:1:1:1), using the minimisation technique, to receive radiotherapy (59·4 Gy in 33 fractions of 1·8 Gy) alone or with adjuvant temozolomide (12 4-week cycles of 150-200 mg/m(2) temozolomide given on days 1-5); or to receive radiotherapy with concurrent temozolomide 75 mg/m(2) per day, with or without adjuvant temozolomide. The primary endpoint was overall survival adjusted for performance status score, age, 1p loss of heterozygosity, presence of oligodendroglial elements, and MGMT promoter methylation status, analysed by intention to treat. We did a planned interim analysis after 219 (41%) deaths had occurred to test the null hypothesis of no efficacy (threshold for rejection p<0·0084). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00626990. At the time of the interim analysis, 745 (99%) of the planned 748 patients had been enrolled. The hazard ratio for overall survival with use of adjuvant temozolomide was 0·65 (99·145% CI 0·45-0·93). Overall survival at 5 years was 55·9% (95% CI 47·2-63·8) with and 44·1% (36·3-51·6) without adjuvant temozolomide. Grade 3-4 adverse events were seen in 8-12% of 549 patients assigned temozolomide, and were mainly haematological and reversible. Adjuvant temozolomide chemotherapy was associated with a significant survival benefit in patients with newly diagnosed non-co-deleted anaplastic glioma. Further analysis of the role of concurrent temozolomide treatment and molecular factors is needed. Schering Plough and MSD.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 61 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 334 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 334 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 64 19%
Other 47 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 42 13%
Student > Postgraduate 24 7%
Student > Bachelor 21 6%
Other 68 20%
Unknown 68 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 181 54%
Neuroscience 20 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 <1%
Other 17 5%
Unknown 94 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 89. 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 14 September 2023.
All research outputs
#480,002
of 25,468,708 outputs
Outputs from The Lancet
#4,501
of 42,746 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,169
of 327,767 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Lancet
#101
of 413 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,468,708 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 42,746 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 68.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 327,767 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 413 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.