↓ Skip to main content

Medical interventions for treating anthracycline-induced symptomatic and asymptomatic cardiotoxicity during and after treatment for childhood cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
14 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
162 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
Medical interventions for treating anthracycline-induced symptomatic and asymptomatic cardiotoxicity during and after treatment for childhood cancer
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008011.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel KL Cheuk, Elske Sieswerda, Elvira C van Dalen, Aleida Postma, Leontien CM Kremer

Abstract

Anthracyclines are frequently used chemotherapeutic agents for childhood cancer that can cause cardiotoxicity during and after treatment. Although several medical interventions in adults with symptomatic or asymptomatic cardiac dysfunction due to other causes are beneficial, it is not known if the same treatments are effective for childhood cancer patients and survivors with anthracycline-induced cardiotoxicity. This review is an update of a previously published Cochrane review. To compare the effect of medical interventions on anthracycline-induced cardiotoxicity in childhood cancer patients or survivors with the effect of placebo, other medical interventions, or no treatment. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2015, Issue 8), MEDLINE/PubMed (1949 to September 2015), and EMBASE/Ovid (1980 to September 2015) for potentially relevant articles. In addition, we searched reference lists of relevant articles, conference proceedings of the International Society for Paediatric Oncology (SIOP), the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), the American Society of Hematology (ASH), the International Conference on Long-Term Complications of Treatment of Children & Adolescents for Cancer, and the European Symposium on Late Complications from Childhood Cancer (from 2005 to 2015), and ongoing trial databases (the ISRCTN Register, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Register, and the trials register of the World Health Organization (WHO); all searched in September 2015). Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing the effectiveness of medical interventions to treat anthracycline-induced cardiotoxicity with either placebo, other medical interventions, or no treatment. Two review authors independently performed the study selection. One review author performed the data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessments, which another review author checked. We performed analyses according to the guidelines in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. In the original version of the review we identified two RCTs; in this update we identified no additional studies. One trial (135 participants) compared enalapril with placebo in childhood cancer survivors with asymptomatic anthracycline-induced cardiac dysfunction. The other trial (68 participants) compared a two-week treatment of phosphocreatine with a control treatment (vitamin C, adenosine triphosphate, vitamin E, oral coenzyme Q10) in leukaemia patients with anthracycline-induced cardiotoxicity. Both studies had methodological limitations.The RCT on enalapril showed no statistically significant differences in overall survival, mortality due to heart failure, development of clinical heart failure, and quality of life between treatment and control groups. A post-hoc analysis showed a decrease (that is improvement) in one measure of cardiac function (left ventricular end-systolic wall stress (LVESWS): -8.62% change) compared with placebo (+1.66% change) in the first year of treatment (P = 0.036), but not afterwards. Participants treated with enalapril had a higher risk of dizziness or hypotension (risk ratio 7.17, 95% confidence interval 1.71 to 30.17) and fatigue (Fisher's exact test, P = 0.013).The RCT on phosphocreatine found no differences in overall survival, mortality due to heart failure, echocardiographic cardiac function, and adverse events between treatment and control groups. Only one trial evaluated the effect of enalapril in childhood cancer survivors with asymptomatic cardiac dysfunction. Although there is some evidence that enalapril temporarily improves one parameter of cardiac function (LVESWS), it is unclear whether it improves clinical outcomes. Enalapril was associated with a higher risk of dizziness or hypotension and fatigue. Clinicians should weigh the possible benefits with the known side effects of enalapril in childhood cancer survivors with asymptomatic anthracycline-induced cardiotoxicity.Only one trial evaluated the effect of phosphocreatine in childhood cancer patients with anthracycline-induced cardiotoxicity. Limited data with a high risk of bias showed no significant difference between phosphocreatine and control treatments on echocardiographic function and clinical outcomes.We did not identify any RCTs or CCTs studying other medical interventions for symptomatic or asymptomatic cardiotoxicity in childhood cancer patients or survivors.High-quality studies should be performed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 162 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 <1%
Unknown 161 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 36 22%
Student > Bachelor 22 14%
Researcher 19 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 9%
Student > Postgraduate 12 7%
Other 24 15%
Unknown 35 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 67 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 4%
Psychology 6 4%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 2%
Other 17 10%
Unknown 46 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 19 October 2018.
All research outputs
#2,788,321
of 15,314,796 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,471
of 11,169 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,355
of 265,895 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#94
of 163 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,314,796 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,169 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 265,895 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 163 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.