↓ Skip to main content

A Phase 2/3 Multicenter, Randomized, Open-Label Study to Compare the Efficacy and Safety of Lenalidomide Versus Investigator's Choice in Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Diffuse Large B-Cell…

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Cancer Research, August 2017
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 (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
12 tweeters
patent
2 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
112 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
111 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
A Phase 2/3 Multicenter, Randomized, Open-Label Study to Compare the Efficacy and Safety of Lenalidomide Versus Investigator's Choice in Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma
Published in
Clinical Cancer Research, August 2017
DOI 10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-16-2818
Pubmed ID
Authors

Myron S. Czuczman, Marek Trněný, Andrew Davies, Simon Rule, Kim M. Linton, Nina Wagner-Johnston, Randy D. Gascoyne, Graham W. Slack, Pierre Brousset, David A. Eberhard, Francisco J. Hernandez-Ilizaliturri, Gilles Salles, Thomas E. Witzig, Pier Luigi Zinzani, George W. Wright, Louis M. Staudt, Yandan Yang, P. Mickey Williams, Chih-Jian Lih, Jacqueline Russo, Anjan Thakurta, Patrick Hagner, Pierre Fustier, Dale Song, Ian D. Lewis

Abstract

Randomized, multicenter, open-label, phase 2/3 trial investigating lenalidomide versus investigator's choice (IC) in relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Patients with DLBCL who received ≥2 prior therapies were stratified by DLBCL subtype (germinal center B-cell [GCB] vs non-GCB; determined by immunohistochemistry [IHC]), then randomized 1:1 to lenalidomide (25 mg/day, 21 days of 28-day cycle) or IC (gemcitabine, rituximab, etoposide, or oxaliplatin). Crossover to lenalidomide was permitted for IC-treated patients with radiologically confirmed progressive disease. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR). Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, and subtype analysis (GCB vs activated B-cell [ABC]) using gene expression profiling (GEP) were exploratory endpoints. Stage 1: 102 DLBCL patients (by IHC: non-GCB, n=54; GCB, n=48) received ≥1 dose of lenalidomide or IC. Hematologic treatment-emergent adverse events with lenalidomide versus IC included neutropenia (42.6%; 36.4%), anemia (33.3%; 47.3%), thrombocytopenia (24.1%; 43.6%), and leukopenia (5.6%; 12.7%), respectively. Overall, lenalidomide-treated patients had an ORR of 27.5% versus 11.8% in IC (ORRs were similar regardless of IHC-defined DLBCL subtype). Median PFS was increased in patients receiving lenalidomide (13.6 weeks) versus IC (7.9 weeks; P=0.041), with greater improvements in non-GCB patients (15.1 weeks versus 7.1 weeks, respectively; P=0.021) compared with GCB (10.1 weeks versus 9.0 weeks, respectively; P=0.550). The clinical benefit of lenalidomide monotherapy in DLBCL patients was more evident in the non-GCB subtype. Exploratory analyses suggest this preferential benefit was more pronounced in the GEP-defined ABC population, demonstrating a need for additional studies of lenalidomide in DLBCL using GEP subtyping.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 111 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 26 23%
Other 17 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 7%
Student > Bachelor 7 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 5%
Other 18 16%
Unknown 29 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 47 42%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Other 10 9%
Unknown 34 31%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 06 September 2022.
All research outputs
#1,971,852
of 21,788,432 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Cancer Research
#1,583
of 12,337 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,265
of 284,674 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Cancer Research
#29
of 158 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,788,432 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,337 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 284,674 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 158 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.