| Title |
Single-agent bevacizumab is an effective treatment in recurrent glioblastoma
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Medical Oncology, January 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12032-014-0460-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ilhan Hacibekiroglu, Hilmi Kodaz, Bulent Erdogan, Esma Turkmen, Melike Ozcelik, Asim Esenkaya, Haci Mehmet Saygi, Sernaz Uzunoglu, Irfan Cicin |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficiency and safety of single-agent bevacizumab therapy for recurrent glioblastoma multiforme (GBM). We identified patients with histologically confirmed glioblastoma and World Health Organization Grade III glioma who were previously treated with temozolomide plus radiotherapy and received 10 mg/kg bevacizumab intravenous infusion every 2 weeks until disease progression for recurrent disease. A total 24 patients included to this study. Twenty-two patients had GBM, and two patients had WHO grade III glioma. No complete response was observed, five patients (20.8 %) had partial response, nine patients (37.5 %) had stable diseases, and ten patients (41.7 %) had progressive diseases. The overall response rate was 20.8 %. The 6-month PFS rate (PFS6) and median PFS were determined as 37.5 % and 4.1 months, respectively. Median OS was 6.4 months. Performance status of 17 (70.8 %) patients was improved following bevacizumab regimen. Univariate analysis showed that improvement in performance status (IPS) following bevacizumab therapy was a significant predictor of both PFS (p < 0.001) and OS (p < 0.020). Bevacizumab-related adverse effects were observed in 13 (54.1 %) patients. Grade 3-4 toxicity was observed in 4 (16.6 %) patients. Therapy interruptions were experienced in two patients due to adverse effects. Single-agent bevacizumab is an effective and safe treatment alternative in recurrent GBM. IPS following bevacizumab therapy was a significant predictor of both PFS and OS. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 3% |
| United States | 1 | 3% |
| Brazil | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 28 | 90% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 16% |
| Researcher | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 16% |
| Unknown | 9 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 52% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 6% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 3% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 3% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 9 | 29% |
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 22 January 2015.
All research outputs
#4,169,227
of 22,778,347 outputs
Outputs from Medical Oncology
#88
of 1,288 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,251
of 352,054 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Oncology
#4
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,778,347 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 1,288 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 352,054 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.