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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Pazopanib-Induced Alopecia, an Underestimated Toxicity?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in oncology, May 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fonc.2015.00112 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Andrea Biondo, Helen Alexander, Komel Khabra, Lisa Pickering, Martin Gore, James Larkin |
| Abstract |
Pazopanib and sunitinib are treatment options for metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC), with similar efficacy, and minor differences in their toxicity profile. Our experience has suggested that pazopanib-induced alopecia may be a potentially significant but previously under-reported toxicity. For this reason, we performed a retrospective review of the clinical records of all patients with mRCC treated with pazopanib at the Royal Marsden Hospital from European licensing until June 2013, and all patients treated with sunitinib over the same period. We found that 36 patients with mRCC were treated with pazopanib and 85 patients with sunitinib. Four of the 36 (11%) patients treated with pazopanib developed alopecia severe enough to warrant a wig versus none of 85 patients treated with sunitinib (p = 0.007). In conclusion, grade 2 pazopanib-induced alopecia was reported at significantly higher rates when compared to sunitinib-induced alopecia. Hence, in our view, patients should be informed about this potential toxicity when discussing the treatment options for mRCC. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 3 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 1 | 33% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 33% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
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 12 June 2015.
All research outputs
#19,944,994
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in oncology
#9,319
of 22,416 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#192,489
of 279,035 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in oncology
#43
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,416 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 279,035 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 71 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.