↓ Skip to main content

Bladder and Kidney Cancer Following Cyclophosphamide Therapy for Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma

Overview of attention for article published in JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, April 1995
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users
patent
2 patents
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
guideline
1 clinical guideline source

Readers on

mendeley
143 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.
Article details
Title
Bladder and Kidney Cancer Following Cyclophosphamide Therapy for Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma
Published in
JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, April 1995
DOI 10.1093/jnci/87.7.524
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Cyclophosphamide is an established bladder carcinogen, but few studies have examined the relationship between dose and effect. The largest analysis to date included only seven cases of bladder cancer. No investigation has estimated the risk of kidney cancer. The purpose of this study was to quantify the risk of bladder and kidney cancer following cyclophosphamide therapy. Within a cohort of 6171 two-year survivors of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL), 48 patients with secondary cancer of the urinary tract were identified and matched to 136 control subjects with NHL who did not develop a second malignancy. Detailed information on chemotherapeutic drugs and cumulative dose received was collected for all subjects. Radiation dose to the target organ was estimated from individual radiotherapy records. Evaluations of the risk of second cancer as a result of treatment with cyclophosphamide alone, radiation alone, or both therapies were made relative to those patients who were exposed to neither treatment modality. A significant 4.5-fold risk of bladder cancer (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.5-13.6) followed therapy with cyclophosphamide, and risk was dependent upon cumulative dose. Among patients who received a total amount of cyclophosphamide of less than 20 g, a nonsignificant 2.4-fold risk of bladder cancer was apparent. Significantly elevated sixfold (95% CI = 1.3-29) and 14.5-fold (95% CI = 2.3-94) risks of bladder malignancy followed cumulative doses of 20-49 g and 50 g or more, respectively (P value for trend = .004). Radiotherapy given without cyclophosphamide was associated with a nonsignificant increased risk of bladder malignancy. Excess bladder cancer risk following treatment with both radiotherapy and cyclophosphamide was as expected if individual risks were summed. Neither radiotherapy nor cyclophosphamide was associated with excesses of kidney cancer. Cyclophosphamide-related bladder cancer is dose dependent. For patients given cumulative doses between 20 and 49 g, the absolute risk of bladder cancer is on the order of three excess cancers per 100 NHL patients after 15 years of follow-up. At cumulative doses of 50 g or more, the excess risk increases to approximately seven excess bladder cancers per 100 NHL patients. The strong dose-response relationship and high absolute risk of bladder cancer underscore the importance of limiting the cumulative dose of cyclophosphamide to what is required to achieve therapeutic end points. The risk of secondary bladder malignancy and other late sequelae of therapy must be carefully weighted against the curative gains provided by cyclophosphamide. Moreover, long-term side effects of therapy that might be acceptable in cancer treatment may need to be re-evaluated for patients with non-neoplastic disorders.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
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 demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 143 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 142 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 16 11%
Researcher 16 11%
Other 11 8%
Student > Master 10 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 6%
Other 26 18%
Unknown 55 38%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 53 37%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Chemistry 3 2%
Other 11 8%
Unknown 58 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 02 April 2025.
All research outputs
#3,444,725
of 33,957,889 outputs
Outputs from JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
#2,314
of 9,789 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,916
of 34,858 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
#9
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 33,957,889 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,789 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 34,858 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.