↓ Skip to main content

The prevention, detection and management of cancer treatment-induced cardiotoxicity: a meta-review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
54 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
162 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
The prevention, detection and management of cancer treatment-induced cardiotoxicity: a meta-review
Published in
BMC Cancer, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12885-015-1407-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aaron Conway, Alexandra L McCarthy, Petra Lawrence, Robyn A Clark

Abstract

The benefits associated with some cancer treatments do not come without risk. A serious side effect of some common cancer treatments is cardiotoxicity. Increased recognition of the public health implications of cancer treatment-induced cardiotoxicity has resulted in a proliferation of systematic reviews in this field to guide practice. Quality appraisal of these reviews is likely to limit the influence of biased conclusions from systematic reviews that have used poor methodology related to clinical decision-making. The aim of this meta-review is to appraise and synthesise evidence from only high quality systematic reviews focused on the prevention, detection or management of cancer treatment-induced cardiotoxicity. Using Cochrane methodology, we searched databases, citations and hand-searched bibliographies. Two reviewers independently appraised reviews and extracted findings. A total of 18 high quality systematic reviews were subsequently analysed, 67 % (n = 12) of these comprised meta-analyses. One systematic review concluded that there is insufficient evidence regarding the utility of cardiac biomarkers for the detection of cardiotoxicity. The following strategies might reduce the risk of cardiotoxicity: 1) The concomitant administration of dexrazoxane with anthracylines; 2) The avoidance of anthracyclines where possible; 3) The continuous administration of anthracyclines (>6 h) rather than bolus dosing; and 4) The administration of anthracycline derivatives such as epirubicin or liposomal-encapsulated doxorubicin instead of doxorubicin. In terms of management, one review focused on medical interventions for treating anthracycline-induced cardiotoxicity during or after treatment of childhood cancer. Neither intervention (enalapril and phosphocreatine) was associated with statistically significant improvement in ejection fraction or mortality. This review highlights the lack of high level evidence to guide clinical decision-making with respect to the detection and management of cancer treatment-associated cardiotoxicity. There is more evidence with respect to the prevention of this adverse effect of cancer treatment. This evidence, however, only applies to anthracycline-based chemotherapy in a predominantly adult population. There is no high-level evidence to guide clinical decision-making regarding the prevention, detection or management of radiation-induced cardiotoxicity.

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 162 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 157 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 14%
Student > Bachelor 22 14%
Researcher 17 10%
Student > Postgraduate 17 10%
Other 13 8%
Other 38 23%
Unknown 32 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 67 41%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 19 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 2%
Other 12 7%
Unknown 42 26%
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 15 May 2015.
All research outputs
#20,798,641
of 25,554,853 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#6,017
of 9,013 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#206,894
of 279,566 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#176
of 237 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,554,853 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,013 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 279,566 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 237 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.