↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of cardiac events associated with liposomal doxorubicin, epirubicin and doxorubicin in breast cancer: a Bayesian network meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Cancer (1965), September 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
61 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
99 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
Comparison of cardiac events associated with liposomal doxorubicin, epirubicin and doxorubicin in breast cancer: a Bayesian network meta-analysis
Published in
European Journal of Cancer (1965), September 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.ejca.2015.07.031
Pubmed ID
Authors

Norihiro Yamaguchi, Takeo Fujii, Shunsuke Aoi, Peter S. Kozuch, Gabriel N. Hortobagyi, Ronald H. Blum

Abstract

Anthracyclines play a broad and important role in the care of patients with either operable or metastatic breast cancer. However cardiotoxicity narrows the therapeutic index of this drug class leading to potentially clinically meaningful treatment delays or discontinuations. We conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis, a validated statistical methodology, allowing direct and indirect comparison of cardiotoxicity of different anthracycline and non-anthracycline regimens. We conducted a systematic review of prospective randomised controlled trials through MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Google Scholar comparing non-anthracycline based regimens (NON), doxorubicin (DOX), epirubicin (EPI) and liposomal doxorubicin (LD). We included studies published up to 1st January 2014 in both adjuvant and metastatic contexts. Notably, HER2/neu-targeted regimens were excluded. We assessed the studies' eligibility criteria and data collection with consensus of two independent authors. Our primary outcome measure was cardiac events grade 3 or greater (CE3) in accordance with Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) Version 4.0. A Bayesian pairwise and network meta-analysis was conducted to estimate pooled Odds Ratio (OR). Nineteen randomised controlled trials met eligibility criteria and were included in this analysis. We found a trend showing that LD is less cardiotoxic than DOX with an OR of 0.60 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34-1.07) There was no difference between Epi and LD with an OR of 0.95 (95%CI 0.39-2.33). DOX is more cardiotoxic than Non with an OR of 1.57 (95%CI 0.90-2.72). DOX has higher CE3 rates than NON does. LD statistically trended to lower cardiac event rates than DOX. Non-statistical significance among EPI, LD and DOX with regard to cardiac toxicity indicates that avoidance of CE3 should not motivate selection of a particular anthracycline in otherwise healthy women in whom total lifetime anthracycline exposure will likely be limited. Overall low incidence of CE3 with any type of anthracycline indicates that we can safely use any anthracycline if cumulative dose limits are not exceeded. While CE3 does not limit our choice of anthracycline LD appears to be the least cardiotoxic. Takeo Fujii is supported by the grant named Young Investigator Award for Study Abroad in Clinical Epidemiology from St. Luke's Life Science Institution.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 1%
Unknown 98 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 17%
Researcher 14 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 13%
Student > Postgraduate 9 9%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Other 17 17%
Unknown 21 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 34%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 7%
Psychology 6 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 15 15%
Unknown 30 30%
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 08 September 2015.
All research outputs
#22,759,452
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Cancer (1965)
#6,432
of 6,871 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#237,657
of 276,999 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Cancer (1965)
#74
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 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 6,871 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. 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 276,999 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 84 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.