↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Fludarabine in the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia: a review

Overview of attention for article published in Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, March 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
patent
3 patents
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Readers on

mendeley
111 Mendeley
Title
Fludarabine in the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia: a review
Published in
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, March 2009
DOI 10.2147/tcrm.s3688
Pubmed ID
Authors

Francesca Ricci, Alessandra Tedeschi, Enrica Morra, Marco Montillo

Abstract

Fludarabine (FAMP) is the most effective and most extensively studied purine analog in indolent B-cell malignancies. Its use is indicated for first-and second-line treatment of B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia (B-CLL). FAMP as a single agent has produced superior response rates and progression-free survival than standard therapy with chlorambucil and alkylator-based regimen. Efficacy of FAMP may be increased by combining this purine analog with other chemotherapeutic and non-chemotherapeutic agents. FAMP and cyclophosphamide combination (FC) has shown promising results with higher overall response and complete response rates than FAMP in monotherapy, although no difference has been detected in survival. Quality of response and eradication of minimal residual disease (MRD) have been reported to be associated with prolonged survival. Eradication of MRD has been achieved by combining FC with mitoxantrone or monoclonal antibody including alemtuzumab or rituximab or both. FAMP has been widely used in non-myeloablative conditioning regimens, often combined with a variety of other cytotoxic agents, with the aim of inducing enough immunosuppression to allow successful engraftment and to exert some pretransplant anti-tumor activity. The current paper provides an overview of use of FAMP as a single agent or as a cornerstone of different therapeutic strategies for treatment of B-CLL patients.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 111 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 17 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 13%
Student > Master 12 11%
Researcher 11 10%
Other 9 8%
Other 19 17%
Unknown 29 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 14%
Chemistry 13 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 5%
Other 15 14%
Unknown 29 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. 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 13 February 2024.
All research outputs
#1,363,215
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#52
of 1,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,637
of 108,601 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#1
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 108,601 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them