| Title |
Clinical use of lenvatinib in combination with everolimus for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, June 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/tcrm.s126910 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alessandro Leonetti, Francesco Leonardi, Melissa Bersanelli, Sebastiano Buti |
| Abstract |
Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) represents 2%-3% of all cancers in adults, and its pathogenesis is mainly related to altered cellular response to hypoxia. Lenvatinib, a novel multitarget tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), represents a therapeutic option, in combination with mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor everolimus, for the treatment of metastatic RCC (mRCC). The objective of this article is to review the evidence about the treatment of mRCC with combination of lenvatinib plus everolimus. Phase I studies supported clinical activity of lenvatinib in mRCC. A randomized, Phase II, open-label, multicenter trial demonstrated the clinical efficacy of combination treatment with lenvatinib plus everolimus in patients with progressive mRCC after prior therapy with TKI. Median progression-free survival was improved by 9 months with the combination therapy compared to the single-agent everolimus, with an overall response rate of 43% for the experimental regimen. Lenvatinib plus everolimus appeared to be slightly less toxic than single-agent lenvatinib and more toxic than single-agent everolimus; grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 71% of patients. Currently, lenvatinib plus everolimus has US Food and Drug Administration approval for its use in mRCC after failure of previous treatment with TKI. The combination therapy with lenvatinib plus everolimus might be a promising choice for second-line treatment of mRCC patients. Based on the results of the Phase II trial, it is possible to speculate that the combination therapy could be appropriate for patients with high disease burden or strongly symptomatic patients. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 29 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 5 | 17% |
| Unspecified | 4 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 7% |
| Researcher | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 14% |
| Unknown | 10 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 17% |
| Unspecified | 4 | 14% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Unknown | 12 | 41% |
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 07 March 2023.
All research outputs
#8,537,346
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#461
of 1,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#127,527
of 330,503 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#6
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 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 1,323 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 330,503 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 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 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 70% of its contemporaries.