Background Although multiple therapies have emerged for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), it is unclear whether application of these agents is consistent in developed and developing countries. We sought to determine patterns of care for mRCC in Brazil as a representative developing country. Material and Methods A commercial database was used to acquire information pertaining to patients with mRCC receiving treatment at private or public hospitals in Brazil between March 2013 and October 2016. Basic clinical and demographic criteria were available, as well as information to ascertain the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk. Treatment-related data across multiple lines of therapy were collected. Results Of 4,379 patients assessed, 3,990 (91%) had metastatic disease, and 26%, 48%, and 26% of patients had good, intermediate, and poor International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk disease, respectively. Although 3,149 patients (79%) received first-line therapy, only 641 (20%) and 152 (5%) received second- and third-line therapy, respectively. In the first-line setting, vascular endothelial growth factor-directed agents represented the most commonly used therapy, whereas in the second-line setting, vascular endothelial growth factor- and mammalian target of rapamycin-directed agents were used with similar frequency. Marked differences were seen in receipt of systemic therapy on the basis of treatment in private or public hospitals. Conclusion Relative to developed countries, marked attrition is noted between each subsequent line of therapy in Brazil. Patterns of care also vary greatly in private and public settings, pointing to financial constraints as a potential cause for discordances in treatment.
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science
3
10%
Nursing and Health Professions
2
7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences
1
3%
Immunology and Microbiology
1
3%
Other
0
0%
Unknown
16
55%
Attention Score in Context
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 40. 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 25 October 2018.
All research outputs
#1,311,890
of 34,665,430 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Global Oncology
#32
of 641 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,672
of 498,528 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Global Oncology
#2
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,665,430 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 641 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 498,528 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
