↓ Skip to main content

Retinoic acid postconsolidation therapy for high-risk neuroblastoma patients treated with autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 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
Retinoic acid postconsolidation therapy for high-risk neuroblastoma patients treated with autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010685.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Frank Peinemann, Elvira C van Dalen, Heike Enk, Frank Berthold

Abstract

Neuroblastoma is a rare malignant disease and mainly affects infants and very young children. The tumours mainly develop in the adrenal medullary tissue, with an abdominal mass as the most common presentation. About 50% of patients have metastatic disease at diagnosis. The high-risk group is characterised by metastasis and other features that increase the risk of an adverse outcome. High-risk patients have a five-year event-free survival of less than 50%. Retinoic acid has been shown to inhibit growth of human neuroblastoma cells and has been considered as a potential candidate for improving the outcome of patients with high-risk neuroblastoma. This review is an update of a previously published Cochrane Review. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of additional retinoic acid as part of a postconsolidation therapy after high-dose chemotherapy (HDCT) followed by autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), compared to placebo retinoic acid or to no additional retinoic acid in people with high-risk neuroblastoma (as defined by the International Neuroblastoma Risk Group (INRG) classification system). We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library (2016, Issue 11), MEDLINE in PubMed (1946 to 24 November 2016), and Embase in Ovid (1947 to 24 November 2016). Further searches included trial registries (on 22 December 2016), conference proceedings (on 23 March 2017) and reference lists of recent reviews and relevant studies. We did not apply limits by publication year or languages. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating additional retinoic acid after HDCT followed by HSCT for people with high-risk neuroblastoma compared to placebo retinoic acid or to no additional retinoic acid. Primary outcomes were overall survival and treatment-related mortality. Secondary outcomes were progression-free survival, event-free survival, early toxicity, late toxicity, and health-related quality of life. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The update search did not identify any additional studies. We identified one RCT that included people with high-risk neuroblastoma who received HDCT followed by autologous HSCT (N = 98) after a first random allocation and who received retinoic acid (13-cis-retinoic acid; N = 50) or no further therapy (N = 48) after a second random allocation. These 98 participants had no progressive disease after HDCT followed by autologous HSCT. There was no clear evidence of difference between the treatment groups either in overall survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 1.63; one trial; P = 0.66) or in event-free survival (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.49; one trial; P = 0.59). We calculated the HR values using the complete follow-up period of the trial. The study also reported overall survival estimates at a fixed point in time. At the time point of five years, the survival estimate was reported to be 59% for the retinoic acid group and 41% for the no-further-therapy group (P value not reported). We did not identify results for treatment-related mortality, progression-free survival, early or late toxicity, or health-related quality of life. We could not rule out the possible presence of selection bias, performance bias, attrition bias, and other bias. We judged the evidence to be of low quality for overall survival and event-free survival, downgraded because of study limitations and imprecision. We identified one RCT that evaluated additional retinoic acid as part of a postconsolidation therapy after HDCT followed by autologous HSCT versus no further therapy in people with high-risk neuroblastoma. There was no clear evidence of a difference in overall survival and event-free survival between the treatment alternatives. This could be the result of low power. Information on other outcomes was not available. This trial was performed in the 1990s, since when many changes in treatment and risk classification have occurred. Based on the currently available evidence, we are therefore uncertain about the effects of retinoic acid in people with high-risk neuroblastoma. More research is needed for a definitive conclusion.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 75 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 21%
Student > Bachelor 13 17%
Student > Master 12 16%
Researcher 11 15%
Unspecified 9 12%
Other 14 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 40%
Unspecified 15 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 8%
Social Sciences 5 7%
Other 11 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 31 January 2018.
All research outputs
#6,788,969
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,694
of 9,882 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#113,431
of 263,590 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#161
of 198 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,882 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.5. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 263,590 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 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 198 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.