↓ Skip to main content

Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation following high-dose chemotherapy for nonrhabdomyosarcoma soft tissue sarcomas

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
86 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
Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation following high-dose chemotherapy for nonrhabdomyosarcoma soft tissue sarcomas
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008216.pub5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Frank Peinemann, Heike Enk, Lesley A Smith

Abstract

Soft tissue sarcomas (STS) are a highly heterogeneous group of rare malignant solid tumors. Nonrhabdomyosarcoma soft tissue sarcomas (NRSTS) comprise all STS except rhabdomyosarcoma. In people with advanced local or metastatic disease, autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) applied after high-dose chemotherapy (HDCT) is a planned rescue therapy for HDCT-related severe hematologic toxicity. The rationale for this update is to determine whether any randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been conducted and to clarify whether HDCT followed by autologous HSCT has a survival advantage. To assess the efficacy and safety of high-dose chemotherapy (HDCT) followed by autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) for all stages of nonrhabdomyosarcoma soft tissue sarcomas (NRSTS) in children and adults. For this update, we revised the search strategy to improve the precision and reduce the number of irrelevant hits. We searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 8), PubMed from 2012 to 6 September 2016, and Embase from 2012 to 26 September 2016. We searched online trial registries and congress proceedings from 2012 to 26 September 2016. Terms representing STS and autologous HSCT were required in the title or abstract. We restricted the study design to RCTs. We included studies if at least 80% of participants had a diagnosis listed in any version of the World Health Organization (WHO) classification and classified as malignant. The search included children and adults with no age limits. We used standard methodologic procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcomes were overall survival and treatment-related mortality. We identified 2135 records; 85 items from electronic databases, 45 from study registries, and 2005 from congress proceedings. The revised search strategy did not identify any additional RCTs. In the previous version of the review, we identified one RCT comparing HDCT followed by autologous HSCT versus standard-dose chemotherapy (SDCT). The trial randomized 87 participants who were considerably heterogeneous with respect to 19 different tumor entities. The data from 83 participants were available for analysis.In the single included trial, overall survival at three years was 32.7% in the HDCT arm versus 49.4% in the SDCT arm and there was no difference between the treatment groups (hazard ratio (HR) 1.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 2.29, P = 0.44; 1 study, 83 participants; high quality evidence). In a subgroup of participants who had a complete response before HDCT, overall survival was higher in both treatment groups and overall survival at three years was 42.8% in the HDCT arm versus 83.9% in the SDCT arm and favored the SDCT group (HR 2.92, 95% CI 1.1 to 7.6, P = 0.028; 1 study, 39 participants).In the single included trial, the authors reported one treatment-related leukemia death two years after HDCT. They also evaluated severe adverse events WHO grade 3 to 4 in 22 participants in the HDCT arm and in 51 participants in the SDCT arm. The authors reported 11 events concerning digestive-, infection-, pain-, or asthenia-related toxicity in the HDCT arm and one event in the SDCT arm (moderate quality evidence). The development of secondary neoplasia was not addressed. We judged the study to have an overall unclear risk of bias as three of seven items had unclear and four items had low risk of bias. For GRADE, we judged two items as high quality and two items as moderate quality. The limited data of a single RCT with an unclear risk of bias and moderate to high quality evidence showed no survival advantage for HDCT. If this treatment is offered it should only be given after careful consideration on an individual person basis and possibly only as part of a well-designed RCT.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 1%
Unknown 85 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 32 37%
Unspecified 13 15%
Researcher 9 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 9%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Other 16 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 51%
Unspecified 18 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 7%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Other 6 7%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 14 December 2017.
All research outputs
#6,714,431
of 13,190,464 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,656
of 10,519 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,140
of 263,460 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#194
of 249 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,190,464 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,519 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.6. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 263,460 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 249 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.