↓ Skip to main content

Utilization and efficacy of second-line targeted therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: data from a national registry

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 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
Utilization and efficacy of second-line targeted therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: data from a national registry
Published in
BMC Cancer, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12885-017-3901-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Radek Lakomy, Alexandr Poprach, Zbynek Bortlicek, Bohuslav Melichar, Renata Chloupkova, Rostislav Vyzula, Milada Zemanova, Katerina Kopeckova, Marek Svoboda, Ondrej Slaby, Igor Kiss, Hana Studentova, Jaroslav Juracek, Ondrej Fiala, Jindrich Kopecky, Jindrich Finek, Ladislav Dusek, Karel Hejduk, Tomas Buchler

Abstract

It is well known that patient characteristics and survival outcomes in randomized trials may not necessarily be similar to those in real-life clinical practice. The aim of the present study was to analyse second line treatment strategies in the real-world practice and to estimate the outcomes of patients treated with second-line targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). This is a retrospective, registry-based study using data from the national registry of targeted therapies for mRCC. The RENIS registry contains data on 3049 patients who started the therapy with at least one targeted agent before 31 December, 2014. Of these patients, 1029 had a record of at least two different targeted therapies and sufficient data for analysis. Survival analysis was carried out using the Kaplan-Meier method. Statistical significance of differences in survival between subgroups was assessed using the log-rank test. The median overall survival from the start of second-line treatment was 17.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 14.5-19.5 months), 17.1 months (95% CI 14.5-19.8), and 15.4 months (95% CI 11.0-19.7) for second-line everolimus, sorafenib, and sunitinib, respectively. Patients receiving second-line everolimus were older at the start of second-line treatment, more likely to have metachronous disease, and less likely to be previously treated with cytokines or to continue to third-line treatment than patients treated with second-line sunitinib or sorafenib. Progression-free survival (PFS) correlated with PFS on first-line treatment only for everolimus. In this retrospective study, no significant differences in survival were observed between the cohorts treated with different second-line agents including everolimus, sorafenib, and sunitinib.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 13%
Lecturer 2 9%
Other 2 9%
Student > Postgraduate 2 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 9%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 9 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 9%
Unknown 9 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 January 2018.
All research outputs
#18,583,054
of 23,016,919 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#5,462
of 8,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#328,902
of 440,670 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#136
of 189 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,016,919 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,359 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 440,670 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 189 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.