| Title |
Pazopanib in the management of advanced soft tissue sarcomas
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/tcrm.s84792 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lee D Cranmer, Elizabeth T Loggers, Seth M Pollack |
| Abstract |
Therapy of soft tissue sarcomas represents an area of significant unmet need in oncology. Angiogenesis has been explored as a potential target both preclinically and clinically, with suggestions of activity. Pazopanib is a multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor with prominent antiangiogenic effects. In a Phase II study, pazopanib demonstrated activity in strata enrolling patients with leiomyosarcomas, synovial sarcomas, or other sarcomas but not those enrolling adipocytic sarcomas. PALETTE, the pivotal Phase III trial, demonstrated improved progression-free survival versus placebo in pazopanib-treated patients previously treated for advanced soft tissue sarcomas. No survival benefit was observed, and adipocytic sarcomas were excluded. Health-related quality-of-life assessments indicated significant decrements in several areas affected by pazopanib toxicities, but no global deterioration. Cost-effectiveness analyses indicate that pazopanib therapy may or may not be cost-effective in different geographic settings. Pazopanib provides important proof-of-concept for antiangiogenic therapy in soft tissue sarcomas. Its use can be improved by further biological studies of its activity profile in sarcomas, studies of biological rational combinations, and clinicopathologic/biological correlative studies of activity to allow better drug targeting. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 32 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 16% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 9% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 22% |
| Unknown | 7 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 47% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 11 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 30 August 2017.
All research outputs
#4,312,309
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#208
of 1,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,204
of 353,659 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#6
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% 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 well, scoring higher than 84% 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 has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.