↓ Skip to main content

Study Design and Rationale for the Phase 3 Clinical Development Program of Enobosarm, a Selective Androgen Receptor Modulator, for the Prevention and Treatment of Muscle Wasting in Cancer Patients (POW…

Overview of attention for article published in Current Oncology Reports, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#30 of 969)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
134 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
170 Mendeley
Title
Study Design and Rationale for the Phase 3 Clinical Development Program of Enobosarm, a Selective Androgen Receptor Modulator, for the Prevention and Treatment of Muscle Wasting in Cancer Patients (POWER Trials)
Published in
Current Oncology Reports, May 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11912-016-0522-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeffrey Crawford, Carla M. M. Prado, Mary Ann Johnston, Richard J. Gralla, Ryan P. Taylor, Michael L. Hancock, James T. Dalton

Abstract

Muscle wasting in cancer is a common and often occult condition that can occur prior to overt signs of weight loss and before a clinical diagnosis of cachexia can be made. Muscle wasting in cancer is an important and independent predictor of progressive functional impairment, decreased quality of life, and increased mortality. Although several therapeutic agents are currently in development for the treatment of muscle wasting or cachexia in cancer, the majority of these agents do not directly inhibit muscle loss. Selective androgen receptor modulators (SARMs) have the potential to increase lean body mass (LBM) and hence muscle mass, without the untoward side effects seen with traditional anabolic agents. Enobosarm, a nonsteroidal SARM, is an agent in clinical development for prevention and treatment of muscle wasting in patients with cancer (POWER 1 and 2 trials). The POWER trials are two identically designed randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, and multinational phase 3 trials to assess the efficacy of enobosarm for the prevention and treatment of muscle wasting in subjects initiating first-line chemotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). To assess enobosarm's effect on both prevention and treatment of muscle wasting, no minimum weight loss is required. These pivotal trials have pioneered the methodological and regulatory fields exploring a therapeutic agent for cancer-associated muscle wasting, a process hereby described. In each POWER trial, subjects will receive placebo (n = 150) or enobosarm 3 mg (n = 150) orally once daily for 147 days. Physical function, assessed as stair climb power (SCP), and LBM, assessed by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), are the co-primary efficacy endpoints in both trials assessed at day 84. Based on extensive feedback from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the co-primary endpoints will be analyzed as a responder analysis. To be considered a physical function responder, a subject must have ≥10 % improvement in physical function compared to baseline. To meet the definition of response on LBM, a subject must have demonstrated no loss of LBM compared with baseline. Secondary endpoints include durability of response assessed at day 147 in those responding at day 84. A combined overall survival analysis for both studies is considered a key secondary safety endpoint. The POWER trials design was established with extensive clinical input and collaboration with regulatory agencies. The efficacy endpoints are a result of this feedback and discussion of the threshold for clinical benefit in patients at risk for muscle wasting. Full results from these studies will soon be published and will further guide the development of future anabolic trials. Clinical Trial ID: NCT01355484. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01355484 , NCT01355497. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01355497?term=g300505&rank=1 .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 170 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 1 <1%
Unknown 169 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 20 12%
Student > Master 20 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 11%
Student > Bachelor 18 11%
Student > Postgraduate 10 6%
Other 27 16%
Unknown 56 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 12 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 6%
Other 22 13%
Unknown 60 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 24 December 2023.
All research outputs
#1,490,928
of 25,048,615 outputs
Outputs from Current Oncology Reports
#30
of 969 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,503
of 304,413 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Oncology Reports
#3
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,048,615 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 969 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 304,413 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
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 has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.