↓ Skip to main content

Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors for the treatment of ovarian cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2015
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)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
118 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
Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors for the treatment of ovarian cancer
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007929.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alison J Wiggans, Gemma KS Cass, Andrew Bryant, Theresa A Lawrie, Jo Morrison

Abstract

Ovarian cancer is the sixth most common cancer and seventh most common cause of cancer death in women world-wide. Three-quarters of women present when the disease has spread throughout the abdomen (stage III or IV) and treatment consists of a combination of debulking surgery and platinum-based chemotherapy. Although initial responses to chemotherapy are good, most women will relapse and require further chemotherapy and will eventually develop resistance to chemotherapy.PARP (poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase) inhibitors, are a novel type of medication that works by preventing cancer cells from repairing their DNA once they have been damaged by other chemotherapy agents. It is not clear how PARP inhibitors compare to conventional chemotherapy regimens for the treatment of ovarian cancer, with respect to survival, side effects and quality of life. To determine the benefits and risks of PARP inhibitors for the treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2014, Issue 4), the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trial Register, MEDLINE (1990 to May 2014), EMBASE (1990 to May 2014), ongoing trials on www.controlled-trials.com/rct, www.clinicaltrials.gov, www.cancer.gov/clinicaltrials and the National Research Register (NRR), the FDA database and pharmaceutical industry biomedical literature. Women with histologically proven EOC who were randomised to treatment groups in trials that either compared PARP inhibitors with no treatment, or PARP inhibitors versus conventional chemotherapy, or PARP inhibitors together with conventional chemotherapy versus conventional chemotherapy alone. We used standard Cochrane methodology. Two review authors independently assessed whether studies met the inclusion criteria. We contacted investigators for additional data, where possible. Outcomes included survival, quality of life and toxicity. We included four RCTs involving 599 women with EOC. Data for veliparib were limited and of low quality, due to small numbers (75 women total). Olaparib, on average, improved progression-free survival (PFS) when added to conventional treatment and when used as maintenance treatment in women with platinum-sensitive disease compared with placebo (hazard ratio (HR) 0.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29 to 0.60; 426 participants ; two studies), but did not improve overall survival (OS) (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.39; 426 participants; two studies). We graded this evidence as moderate quality using the GRADE approach. Olaparib was associated with more severe adverse events (G3/4) during the maintenance phase compared with controls (risk ratio (RR) 1.74, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.49; 385 participants, two studies; moderate quality evidence). Quality of life data were insufficient for meta-analysis. We identified four ongoing studies. PARP inhibitors appear to improve PFS in women with recurrent platinum-sensitive disease. Ongoing studies are likely to provide more information about whether the improvement in PFS leads to any change in OS in this subgroup of women with EOC. More research is needed to determine whether PARP inhibitors have any role to play in platinum-resistant disease.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 118 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 2%
Austria 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Ghana 1 <1%
Unknown 113 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 16%
Student > Bachelor 18 15%
Student > Master 14 12%
Other 11 9%
Researcher 10 8%
Other 24 20%
Unknown 22 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 41%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 3%
Other 16 14%
Unknown 25 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 22 May 2016.
All research outputs
#1,277,919
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,610
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,402
of 232,256 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#104
of 239 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 232,256 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 239 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.