↓ Skip to main content

High-dose chemotherapy and autologous haematopoietic stem cell rescue for children with high-risk neuroblastoma

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 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 (90th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
5 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
93 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
High-dose chemotherapy and autologous haematopoietic stem cell rescue for children with high-risk neuroblastoma
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006301.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bilgehan Yalçin, Leontien CM Kremer, Elvira C van Dalen

Abstract

Despite the development of new treatment options, the prognosis of high-risk neuroblastoma patients is still poor; more than half of patients experience disease recurrence. High-dose chemotherapy and haematopoietic stem cell rescue (i.e. myeloablative therapy) might improve survival. This review is the second update of a previously published Cochrane review. Primary objectiveTo compare the efficacy, that is event-free and overall survival, of high-dose chemotherapy and autologous bone marrow or stem cell rescue with conventional therapy in children with high-risk neuroblastoma. Secondary objectivesTo determine adverse effects (e.g. veno-occlusive disease of the liver) and late effects (e.g. endocrine disorders or secondary malignancies) related to the procedure and possible effects of these procedures on quality of life. We searched the electronic databases The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2014, issue 11), MEDLINE/PubMed (1966 to December 2014) and EMBASE/Ovid (1980 to December 2014). In addition, we searched reference lists of relevant articles and the conference proceedings of the International Society for Paediatric Oncology (SIOP) (from 2002 to 2014), American Society for Pediatric Hematology and Oncology (ASPHO) (from 2002 to 2014), Advances in Neuroblastoma Research (ANR) (from 2002 to 2014) and American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO) (from 2008 to 2014). We searched for ongoing trials by scanning the ISRCTN register (www.isrct.com) and the National Institute of Health Register (www.clinicaltrials.gov). Both registers were screened in April 2015. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of myeloablative therapy with conventional therapy in high-risk neuroblastoma patients. Two authors independently performed study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment. If appropriate, we pooled studies. The risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for dichotomous outcomes. For the assessment of survival data, we calculated the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% CI. We used Parmar's method if hazard ratios were not reported in the study. We used a random-effects model. We identified three RCTs including 739 children. They all used an age of one year as the cut-off point for pre-treatment risk stratification. The first updated search identified a manuscript reporting additional follow-up data for one of these RCTs, while the second update identified an erratum of this study. There was a significant statistical difference in event-free survival in favour of myeloablative therapy over conventional chemotherapy or no further treatment (three studies, 739 patients; HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.90). There was a significant statistical difference in overall survival in favour of myeloablative therapy over conventional chemotherapy or no further treatment (two studies, 360 patients; HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.98). However, when additional follow-up data were included in the analyses the difference in event-free survival remained statistically significant (three studies, 739 patients; HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.90), but the difference in overall survival was no longer statistically significant (two studies, 360 patients; HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.01). The meta-analysis of secondary malignant disease and treatment-related death did not show any significant statistical differences between the treatment groups. Data from one study (379 patients) showed a significantly higher incidence of renal effects, interstitial pneumonitis and veno-occlusive disease in the myeloablative group compared to conventional chemotherapy, whereas for serious infections and sepsis no significant difference between the treatment groups was identified. No information on quality of life was reported. In the individual studies we evaluated different subgroups, but the results were not univocal in all studies. All studies had some methodological limitations. Based on the currently available evidence, myeloablative therapy seems to work in terms of event-free survival. For overall survival there is currently no evidence of effect when additional follow-up data are included. No definitive conclusions can be made regarding adverse effects and quality of life, although possible higher levels of adverse effects should be kept in mind. A definitive conclusion regarding the effect of myeloablative therapy in different subgroups is not possible. This systematic review only allows a conclusion on the concept of myeloablative therapy; no conclusions can be made regarding the best treatment strategy. Future trials on the use of myeloablative therapy for high-risk neuroblastoma should focus on identifying the most optimal induction and/or myeloablative regimen. The best study design to answer these questions is a RCT. These RCTs should be performed in homogeneous study populations (e.g. stage of disease and patient age) and have a long-term follow-up. Different risk groups, using the most recent definitions, should be taken into account.It should be kept in mind that recently the age cut-off for high risk disease was changed from one year to 18 months. As a result it is possible that patients with what is now classified as intermediate-risk disease have been included in the high-risk groups. Consequently the relevance of the results of these studies to the current practice can be questioned. Survival rates may be overestimated due to the inclusion of patients with intermediate-risk disease.

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 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 93 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 20%
Researcher 13 14%
Student > Bachelor 11 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 9%
Other 18 19%
Unknown 14 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 43 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 8%
Psychology 6 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Chemistry 2 2%
Other 14 15%
Unknown 18 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 12 December 2019.
All research outputs
#993,874
of 14,123,595 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,972
of 10,858 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,824
of 252,478 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#99
of 261 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,123,595 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,858 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 252,478 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 261 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 62% of its contemporaries.