| Title |
Efficacy and safety of lenalidomide for the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cancer Management and Research, September 2018
|
| DOI | 10.2147/cmar.s168610 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Chun-Hong Xie, Min Wei, Fei-Yan Yang, Fu-Zhen Wu, Lei Chen, Jian-Kun Wang, Qin Liu, Jin-Xiong Huang |
| Abstract |
Lenalidomide is effective for the treatment of low-risk myelodysplastic syndromes with deletion 5q abnormalities. However, whether lenalidomide leads to a significant improvement in treatment response and overall survival (OS) in cases of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) remains controversial. A systematic review and a meta-analysis were performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of lenalidomide in the treatment of AML. Clinical studies were identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Efficacy outcomes included overall response rate (ORR), complete remission (CR), and OS. Safety was evaluated based on the incidence of grade 3 and 4 treatment-related adverse events (AEs). Eleven studies were included in our meta-analysis; collectively these studies featured 407 AML patients. Pooled estimates for overall ORR and CR were 31% (95% CI: 26%-36%) and 21% (95% CI: 16%-27%), respectively. Thrombocytopenia, anemia, neutropenia, and infection were the most common grade 3 and 4 AEs. Lenalidomide may have some clinical activity in AML, but the population that would benefit from lenalidomide and incorporating lenalidomide into combination drug strategies need to be better defined. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 22 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 4 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 14% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 5% |
| Professor | 1 | 5% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 9% |
| Unknown | 10 | 45% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 23% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 23% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 5% |
| Engineering | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 10 | 45% |
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 21 September 2018.
All research outputs
#18,649,666
of 23,103,903 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Management and Research
#1,057
of 2,017 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#257,936
of 335,781 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Management and Research
#62
of 110 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,103,903 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,017 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 335,781 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 110 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.