| Title |
Fatigue among patients with renal cell carcinoma receiving adjuvant sunitinib or sorafenib: patient-reported outcomes of ECOG-ACRIN E2805 trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Supportive Care in Cancer, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00520-017-4027-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Fengmin Zhao, David Cella, Judith Manola, Robert S. DiPaola, Lynne I. Wagner, Naomi S. B. Haas |
| Abstract |
E2805 was a phase III trial to test whether adjuvant sunitinib or sorafenib could improve disease-free survival compared to placebo in patients with renal cell carcinoma. Patient-reported outcomes (PRO), focusing on fatigue, were evaluated as a secondary endpoint. A total of 463 patients participated in the PRO study. Fatigue was measured by the FACIT Fatigue scale and PROMIS Fatigue SF1 measure at baseline, week 10, and week 22. The primary endpoint was change in fatigue score from baseline to week 22, measured by the FACIT Fatigue scale. Secondarily, the psychometric properties of PROMIS Fatigue SF1 were assessed in relation to the FACIT Fatigue scale. Fatigue got significantly worse on all arms after 2 cycles of treatment, and especially so in patients on sunitinib (- 9.6 vs. - 5.6 on sorafenib vs. - 4.7 on placebo). Fatigue remained stable during week 10 and week 22. Overall, the mean score change between baseline and week 22 was - 7.9 (p < 0.001) on sunitinib, - 6.4 (p < 0.001) on sorafenib and - 5.6 (p < 0.001) on placebo arm. The difference in score change was not statistically significant between the two experimental arms and the placebo arm (difference = - 2.34 [p = 0.110] and - 0.87 [p = 0.535] for sunitinib vs. placebo and sorafenib vs. placebo). PROMIS Fatigue SF1 had good internal consistency reliability and construct and criterion validity, and was highly correlated with the FACIT Fatigue scale score. Fatigue got worse during study period, especially in patients on sunitinib. The PROMIS Fatigue SF1 was highly correlated with FACIT Fatigue and produced similar results. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 40 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 10% |
| Researcher | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 19 | 48% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 30% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 8% |
| Psychology | 2 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 19 | 48% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 01 January 2018.
All research outputs
#3,154,718
of 23,012,811 outputs
Outputs from Supportive Care in Cancer
#685
of 4,641 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,615
of 441,172 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Supportive Care in Cancer
#30
of 90 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,012,811 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,641 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 84% 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 441,172 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 90 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 65% of its contemporaries.