↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Axitinib versus sorafenib as a second-line therapy in Asian patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: results from a randomized registrational study

Overview of attention for article published in OncoTargets and therapy, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
Title
Axitinib versus sorafenib as a second-line therapy in Asian patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: results from a randomized registrational study
Published in
OncoTargets and therapy, June 2015
DOI 10.2147/ott.s83302
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vardit Dror, Shukui Qin, Connie Chen, Sinil Kim, Dingwei Ye, Feng Bi, Jie Jin, Ying Cheng, Jun Guo, Xiubao Ren, Yiran Huang, Jamal Tarazi, Jie Tang

Abstract

This registrational trial evaluated the efficacy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes of axitinib versus sorafenib as a second-line treatment in Asian patients with clear-cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). In this open-label, multicenter study, previously treated Asian patients with clear-cell mRCC were stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and prior therapy and randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive axitinib (5 mg twice daily) or sorafenib (400 mg twice daily). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by a masked independent review committee. A total of 204 Asian patients received axitinib (n=135) or sorafenib (n=69). Median PFS (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 6.5 (4.7-9.1) months with axitinib versus 4.8 (3.0-6.5) months with sorafenib (hazard ratio, 0.731; 95% CI, 0.506-1.058; one-sided P=0.0531). The objective response rate (95% CI) was 23.7% (16.8%-31.8%) with axitinib versus 10.1% (4.2%-19.8%) with sorafenib. Common, grade ≥3, all-causality adverse events were hypertension (19.3%), weight decrease (5.2%), and proteinuria (5.2%) with axitinib and hypertension (8.7%) and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (7.2%) with sorafenib. In a time-to-deterioration composite end point of death, progression, and worsening of Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index score, patients treated with axitinib demonstrated a 17%-24% risk reduction compared with sorafenib-treated patients. Axitinib is clinically active and well tolerated in previously treated Asian patients with mRCC, consistent with the results from the global Phase III trial. These results establish axitinib as a second-line treatment option for Asian patients with mRCC.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 14%
Student > Master 4 14%
Other 2 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 12 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 32%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 4%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 13 46%
Attention Score in Context

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 04 August 2017.
All research outputs
#8,543,833
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from OncoTargets and therapy
#551
of 3,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#97,117
of 281,494 outputs
Outputs of similar age from OncoTargets and therapy
#14
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,016 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 281,494 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 55% of its contemporaries.
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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.