| Title |
Eribulin for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer: an update on its safety and efficacy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Women's Health, January 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ijwh.s74462 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mark K Doherty, Patrick G Morris |
| Abstract |
Breast cancer remains a leading cause of cancer-related death internationally. Treatment approaches for metastatic breast cancer have evolved in recent years; however chemotherapy remains a core component for the majority of patients. Agents such as anthracyclines and taxanes have been extensively studied and form standard treatment. Eribulin mesylate is a novel synthetic microtubule-directed chemotherapy, based on a naturally-occurring compound. Through phase I studies, eribulin was found to be tolerable and activity was seen in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Phase II studies in metastatic breast cancer further demonstrated its efficacy, with responses and survival which compare favorably with other studied chemotherapy agents. The phase III EMBRACE study showed superior survival for patients treated with eribulin compared with those who received a physician's choice control. This led to its approval for use in many countries in this setting. Its toxicity profile is well established and manageable for the most part, with the commonest reported toxicities being alopecia, fatigue, neutropenia and peripheral neuropathy. A second reported phase III study comparing eribulin to capecitabine failed to show an improvement in survival in pretreated patients. This article reviews the clinical pharmacology and mechanism of action of eribulin, and summarizes the results of the major preclinical and clinical studies of eribulin in metastatic breast cancer. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Portugal | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 52 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 9 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 15% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 13% |
| Researcher | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 9% |
| Other | 11 | 20% |
| Unknown | 8 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 43% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 11% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 6% |
| Chemistry | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 7 | 13% |
| Unknown | 10 | 19% |
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 May 2022.
All research outputs
#7,642,507
of 23,271,751 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Women's Health
#314
of 796 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,052
of 355,485 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Women's Health
#9
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,271,751 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 796 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.9. 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 355,485 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 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.