↓ Skip to main content

Toxicity of Cancer Therapies in Older Patients

Overview of attention for article published in Current Oncology Reports, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 Mendeley
Title
Toxicity of Cancer Therapies in Older Patients
Published in
Current Oncology Reports, June 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11912-018-0705-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Olivia Le Saux, Claire Falandry

Abstract

In clinical practice, older patients are often undertreated due to underrepresentation in clinical trials and fear of toxicity. Our objective was therefore to review toxicities that are specific to older cancer patients, to review risk factors in order to help physicians guide their decisions, and to review interventions that can be implemented in routine clinical practice to prevent toxicity induced by cancer therapies. On the whole, reviews report similar number and frequency as well as similar grade 3 or 4 adverse events between subjects older and younger than 65 years. Yet patients included in clinical trials are often not representative of real-life patients and are often fit older cancer patients. Moreover, tolerance to the additive impact of multiple adverse effects is different between older and younger patients. And specific symptoms such as stomatitis may cause a series of consequences such as dehydration, denutrition, renal insufficiency, and adverse events of renally excreted drugs. Older patients are at high risk of toxicity due to many factors but mainly due to the prevalence of frailty in this population that has been estimated to be around 40% increasing the risk of chemotherapy intolerance. As a consequence, interventions must be implemented according to altered domains of comprehensive geriatric assessment in order to improve anticancer tolerance. These interventions are reviewed here.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 50 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 10%
Student > Master 5 10%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 15 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 6%
Psychology 2 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 18 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 08 July 2018.
All research outputs
#13,619,233
of 23,090,520 outputs
Outputs from Current Oncology Reports
#482
of 897 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#169,546
of 328,592 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Oncology Reports
#9
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,090,520 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 897 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 328,592 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.