↓ Skip to main content

Evolution of the Treatment Paradigm for Patients with Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Advances in Therapy, November 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Readers on

mendeley
60 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
Evolution of the Treatment Paradigm for Patients with Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer
Published in
Advances in Therapy, November 2013
DOI 10.1007/s12325-013-0070-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zafar Malik, Heather Payne, Jawaher Ansari, Simon Chowdhury, Mohammad Butt, Alison Birtle, Santhanam Sundar, Chinnamani Vee Eswar, Simon Hughes, Amit Bahl

Abstract

As recently as 2004, treatment options for men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) were limited, with docetaxel the only approved agent conferring a survival benefit. The therapeutic landscape is now very different, with several agents demonstrating prolonged survival since 2010. New agents for the treatment of mCRPC include sipuleucel-T, cabazitaxel, abiraterone acetate, enzalutamide and radium-223. All are now approved for use in this patient group, although the specific licensing terms vary between agents. In addition, denosumab may have utility in patients with bone metastases. A number of novel agents are also in development with promising initial results. However, because these treatment options have proliferated rapidly, there is currently a paucity of clinical evidence regarding their optimal sequencing. Selection of an appropriate treatment option should take into consideration disease characteristics, drug availability and patient choice. In summary, we discuss several new treatment options available for mCRPC and their integration into the current treatment paradigm.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 59 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 13%
Student > Postgraduate 6 10%
Student > Master 6 10%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Other 13 22%
Unknown 12 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 32%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 3%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 17 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 26 November 2013.
All research outputs
#5,853,240
of 22,731,677 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Therapy
#482
of 2,335 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,733
of 306,357 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Therapy
#3
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,731,677 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,335 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 306,357 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.