↓ Skip to main content

Luteinising hormone releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists for the treatment of relapsed epithelial ovarian cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
10 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
7 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
Luteinising hormone releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists for the treatment of relapsed epithelial ovarian cancer
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011322.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rekha Wuntakal, Srividya Seshadri, Ana Montes, Geoff Lane

Abstract

Ovarian cancer is seventh most common cancer in women worldwide. Approximately 1.3% of women will be diagnosed with ovarian cancer at some point during their life time. The majority of tumours arise from surface of the ovary (epithelial). Two thirds of these women will present with advanced disease, requiring aggressive treatment, which includes debulking surgery (removal of as much disease as possible) and chemotherapy. However, most women (75%) with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) will relapse following surgery and chemotherapy. Patients who relapse are treated with either platinum or non-platinum drugs and this is dependent on the platinum-sensitivity and platinum-free interval. These drug regimens are generally well-tolerated although there are potential severe side effects. New treatments that can be used to treat recurrence or prevent disease progression after first-line or subsequent chemotherapy are important, especially those with a low toxicity profile. Hormones such as luteinising hormone releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists have been used in the treatment of relapsed EOC. Some studies have shown objective remissions, while other studies have shown little or no benefit. Most small studies report a better side-effect profile for LHRH agonists when compared to standard chemotherapeutic agents used in EOC. To compare the effectiveness and safety of luteinising hormone releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists with chemotherapeutic agents or placebo in relapsed epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). We searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group trials register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and Embase up to January 2016. We also searched registers of clinical trials and abstracts of scientific meetings. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared LHRH agonists with chemotherapeutic agents or placebo in relapsed EOC. Two review authors independently assessed whether relevant studies met the inclusion criteria, retrieved data and assessed risk of bias. Two studies, including 97 women, met our inclusion criteria: one assessed LHRH agonist (leuprorelin) use in relapsed (platinum-resistant and platinum-refractory) EOC in comparison with a chemotherapeutic agent (treosulfan) (Du Bois 2002); the other examined LHRH agonist (decapeptyl) versus a placebo (Currie 1994). Since both studies had different control groups, a meta-analysis was not possible.There may be little or no difference between treatment with leuprorelin or treosulfan in overall survival (OS) (hazard ratio (HR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58 to 1.67; very low-quality evidence) or progression-free survival (PFS) at six and 12 months (risk ratio (RR) 0.61, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.68, and RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.12 to 3.66; very low-quality evidence), respectively (Du Bois 2002). The duration of follow-up was 2.5 years and quality of life (QoL) was not reported in this study.Alopecia and fatigue were probably more common with treosulfan than leuprorelin (alopecia RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.91 (very low-quality evidence)). There may be little or no difference in other Grade 3/4 side effects: nausea and vomiting (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.12 to 3.66 (very low-quality evidence)); neurotoxicity (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.71 (very low-quality evidence)) and neutropenia (RR 0.97, 95% 0.06 to 14.97 (very low-quality evidence)),The Currie 1994 study, which compared decapeptyl treatment with placebo, reported mean PFS of 16 weeks verus 11.2 weeks, respectively. No relative effects measures or P value at a particular time point were reported. Overall survival (OS) and QoL outcomes were not reported. In addition, adverse events were only mentioned for the decapeptyl group.Adverse events were incompletely reported (no adverse events in decapeptyl group, but not reported for the placebo group). Based on this review of two small RCTs, there is not enough evidence to comment on the safety and effectiveness of LHRH agonists in the treatment of platinum-refractory and platinum-resistant (relapsed) EOC. Overall, the quality of evidence for all outcomes (including OS, PFS, QoL and adverse events) is very low.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 7 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 14%
Unknown 6 86%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 200%
Student > Bachelor 8 114%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 100%
Unspecified 4 57%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 57%
Other 7 100%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 271%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 114%
Unspecified 5 71%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 57%
Psychology 2 29%
Other 6 86%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 February 2019.
All research outputs
#2,374,698
of 13,429,053 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,186
of 10,591 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,374
of 261,940 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#72
of 139 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,429,053 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,591 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 261,940 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 139 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.