↓ Skip to main content

Rapid COJEC versus standard induction therapies for high-risk neuroblastoma

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 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
Rapid COJEC versus standard induction therapies for high-risk neuroblastoma
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010774.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Frank Peinemann, Doreen A Kahangire, Elvira C van Dalen, Frank Berthold

Abstract

Neuroblastoma is a rare malignant disease and mainly affects infants and very young children. The tumors mainly develop in the adrenal medullary tissue and an abdominal mass is the most common presentation. The high-risk group is characterized by metastasis and other characteristics that increase the risk for an adverse outcome. In the rapid COJEC induction schedule, higher single doses of selected drugs than standard induction schedules are administered over a substantially shorter treatment period, with shorter intervals between cycles. Shorter intervals and higher doses increase the dose intensity of chemotherapy and might improve survival. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and adverse events of the rapid COJEC induction schedule as compared to standard induction schedules in patients with high-risk neuroblastoma (as defined by the International Neuroblastoma Risk Group (INRG) classification system). Outcomes of interest were complete response, early toxicity and treatment-related mortality as primary endpoints and overall survival, progression- and event-free survival, late non-hematological toxicity, and health-related quality of life as secondary endpoints. We searched the electronic databases CENTRAL (2014, Issue 11), MEDLINE (PubMed), and EMBASE (Ovid) for articles from inception to 11 November 2014. Further searches included trial registries, conference proceedings, and reference lists of recent reviews and relevant articles. We did not apply limits on publication year or languages. Randomized controlled trials evaluating the rapid COJEC induction schedule for high-risk neuroblastoma patients compared to standard induction schedules. Two review authors performed study selection, abstracted data on study and patient characteristics, and assessed risk of bias independently. We resolved differences by discussion or by appeal to a third review author. We performed analyses according to the guidelines of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We used the five GRADE considerations, study limitations, consistency of effect, imprecision, indirectness, and publication bias, to judge the quality of the evidence. We downgraded for risk of bias and imprecision MAIN RESULTS: We identified one randomized controlled trial (CCLG-ENSG-5) that included 262 patients with high-risk neuroblastoma who were randomized to receive either rapid COJEC (N = 130) or standard OPEC/COJEC (N = 132) induction chemotherapy. We graded the evidence as low quality; we downgraded for risk of bias and imprecision.There was no clear evidence of a difference between the treatment groups in complete response (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 1.38), treatment-related mortality (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.33 to 4.39), overall survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0.83, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.10), and event-free survival (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.13). We calculated the HRs using the complete follow-up period of the trial.Febrile neutropenia (two or more episodes), proven fungal infections, septicemia (one or more episodes), gastrointestinal toxicity (grade 3 or 4), renal toxicity (glomerular filtration rate < 80 ml/min per body surface area of 1.73 m(2)), neurological toxicity (grade 3 or 4), and ototoxicity (Brock grade 2 to 4) were addressed as early toxicities (during pre-operative chemotherapy). For febrile neutropenia, septicemia, and renal toxicity, a statistically significant difference in favor of the standard treatment arm was identified; for all other early toxicities no clear evidence of a difference between treatment groups was identified. With regard to late non-hematological toxicities (median follow-up 12.7 years; range 6.9 to 16.5 years), the study provided data on any complication, renal toxicity (glomerular filtration rate < 80 ml/min per body surface area of 1.73m(2)), ototoxicity (Brock grade 1 to 4), endocrine complications, neurocognitive complications (i.e. behavioral, speech, or learning difficulties), and second malignancies. For endocrine complications and neurocognitive complications, a statistically significant difference in favor of the rapid COJEC arm was found; for all other late non-hematological toxicities no clear evidence of a difference between treatment groups was identified.Data on progression-free survival and health-related quality of life were not reported. We identified one randomized controlled trial that evaluated rapid COJEC versus standard induction therapy in patients with high-risk neuroblastoma. No clear evidence of a difference in complete response, treatment-related mortality, overall survival, and event-free survival between the treatment alternatives was found. This could be the result of low power or too short a follow-up period. Results of both early and late toxicities were ambiguous. Information on progression-free survival and health-related quality of life were not available. This trial was performed in the 1990s. Since then, many changes in, for example, treatment and risk classification have occurred. Therefore, based on the currently available evidence, we are uncertain about the effects of rapid COJEC and standard induction therapy in patients with high-risk neuroblastoma. More research is needed for a definitive conclusion.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 2%
France 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 85 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 18 20%
Student > Master 15 17%
Researcher 9 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Other 14 16%
Unknown 19 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 43%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 7%
Social Sciences 5 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 23 26%

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 28 May 2015.
All research outputs
#3,904,179
of 13,190,464 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,968
of 10,519 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,417
of 233,066 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#177
of 237 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,190,464 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 233,066 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 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 237 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.