| Title |
Comparative efficacy and safety of axitinib versus sorafenib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
OncoTargets and therapy, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ott.s100706 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hai Wang, Libo Man, Guizhong Li, Guanglin Huang, Jianwei Wang |
| Abstract |
This study was performed to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of axitinib and sorafenib in the therapy of metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Eligible studies were searched from PubMed, Embase, and Future Medicine databases. The pooled hazard ratios and relative risk ratios (RRs) were calculated by using Stata 12.0 software. A total of 1,011 patients qualified to participate in this Phase III study that included randomized controlled trials. Meta-analysis results showed that axitinib was more highly and significantly associated with a survival benefit in the independently assessed progression-free survival in comparison to sorafenib. The values of RR of the objective response rate and disease control rate were also significantly different. Results of the analysis of adverse events concerning hypertension and hypothyroidism demonstrated that the values of RR were significantly higher in the axitinib group and lower risks were established in the patients treated with axitinib. Therefore, axitinib was a better treatment option for metastatic renal cell carcinoma treatment than sorafenib, especially after failure of prior systemic therapies. This analysis revealed that axitinib had higher risks of hypertension and hypothyroidism and lower risks of rash and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 21 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 19% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 10% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 5% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 14% |
| Unknown | 7 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 48% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 5% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 8 | 38% |
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 18 July 2018.
All research outputs
#17,285,668
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from OncoTargets and therapy
#1,146
of 3,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#225,308
of 353,659 outputs
Outputs of similar age from OncoTargets and therapy
#44
of 124 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 353,659 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 124 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 58% of its contemporaries.