↓ Skip to main content

Management of adverse events of targeted therapies in normal and special patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Overview of attention for article published in Cancer and Metastasis Reviews, July 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
Title
Management of adverse events of targeted therapies in normal and special patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma
Published in
Cancer and Metastasis Reviews, July 2012
DOI 10.1007/s10555-012-9355-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

María José Méndez-Vidal, Esther Martínez Ortega, Álvaro Montesa Pino, Begoña Pérez Valderrama, Ruth Viciana

Abstract

Treatment options for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) have evolved very rapidly, as reflected by the approval of the many drugs that have shown efficacy in phase III studies. Approved drugs include tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) such as sunitinib, sorafenib and pazopanib, vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors such as bevacizumab, and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors such as temsirolimus and everolimus. These biological agents have toxicity profiles that differ from those accompanying current chemotherapeutic agents, but their novelty leads to a lack of exhaustive clinical data regarding related adverse events (AEs), whose symptoms may overlap with those of the chronic illnesses of patients with mRCC such as hypertension, hyperglycemia, and pneumonitis. Hypertension, hypothyroidism, hand-foot syndrome, and fatigue are AEs frequently associated with TKIs; whereas immunosuppression, stomatitis, metabolic alterations, and non-infectious pneumonitis are AEs of mTOR inhibitors. Recommendations for treating these adverse events in patients with mRCC are usually the same as those for the general population. Mild to moderate toxicities may be managed with supportive and pharmacologic interventions, but higher-grade toxicities usually require external specialist consultation, dose reductions, and treatment interruption or discontinuation. Some groups of patients with mRCC, such as frail, elderly patients, and patients with renal or liver dysfunction, require special management of AEs.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 5%
Spain 1 3%
Netherlands 1 3%
Unknown 35 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 23%
Other 7 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Other 7 18%
Unknown 7 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 54%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Psychology 3 8%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 7 18%
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 21 December 2012.
All research outputs
#17,661,224
of 22,671,366 outputs
Outputs from Cancer and Metastasis Reviews
#646
of 806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,449
of 163,318 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer and Metastasis Reviews
#14
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,671,366 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 163,318 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.