↓ Skip to main content

Toxicity and efficacy of lomustine and bevacizumab in recurrent glioblastoma patients

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Neuro-Oncology, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
Title
Toxicity and efficacy of lomustine and bevacizumab in recurrent glioblastoma patients
Published in
Journal of Neuro-Oncology, January 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11060-017-2736-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

J. N. Jakobsen, T. Urup, K. Grunnet, A. Toft, M. D. Johansen, S. H. Poulsen, I. J. Christensen, A. Muhic, H. S. Poulsen

Abstract

The combination of lomustine and bevacizumab is a commonly used salvage treatment for recurrent glioblastoma (GBM). We investigated the toxicity and efficacy of lomustine plus bevacizumab (lom-bev) in a community-based patient cohort and made a comparison to another frequently used combination therapy consisting of irinotecan plus bevacizumab (iri-bev). Seventy patients with recurrent GBM were treated with lomustine 90 mg/m2 every 6 weeks and bevacizumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks. Toxicity was registered and compared to the toxicity observed in 219 recurrent GBM patients who had previously been treated with irinotecan 125 mg/m2 and bevacizumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks. The response rate was 37.1% for lom-bev and 30.1% for iri-bev. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 23 weeks for lom-bev and 21 weeks for iri-bev (p = 0.9). Overall survival (OS) was 37 weeks for lom-bev and 32 weeks for iri-bev (p = 0.5). Lom-bev caused a significantly higher frequency of thrombocytopenia (11.4% grade 3-4) compared to iri-bev (3.5% grade 3-4). Iri-bev patients had more gastrointestinal toxicity with regard to nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, constipation and stomatitis. Within the limitations of the study lom-bev is a well-tolerated treatment for recurrent GBM, although hematological toxicity may be a dose limiting factor. No significant differences between lom-bev and iri-bev were observed with regard to PFS or OS. The differences in toxicity profiles between lom-bev and iri-bev could guide treatment decision in recurrent GBM therapy as efficacy is equal and no predictive factors for efficacy exist.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 49 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 6 12%
Researcher 6 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 12%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Student > Master 4 8%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 18 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 27%
Neuroscience 5 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 6%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 19 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 February 2019.
All research outputs
#20,459,801
of 23,016,919 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neuro-Oncology
#2,587
of 2,987 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#379,343
of 443,062 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neuro-Oncology
#75
of 116 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,016,919 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,987 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 443,062 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 116 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.