| Title |
Critical appraisal of bevacizumab in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
OncoTargets and therapy, September 2012
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ott.s30581 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Federica Zoratto, Luigi Rossi, Angelo Zullo, Anselmo Papa, Eleonora Zaccarelli, Luigi Tomao, Erika Giordani, Maria Colonna, Giovanni Baiano, Silverio Tomao |
| Abstract |
Colorectal cancer is one of the most common cancers worldwide. The prognosis of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer in recent years has increased from 5 months with best supportive care to nearly 2 years with chemotherapy combined with bevacizumab, an antivascular endothelial growth factor monoclonal antibody. New prognostic and predictive biomarkers have been identified to guide chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer, such as KRAS and BRAF oncogenes. However, the status of these oncogenes does not affect the efficacy of bevacizumab, and biomarkers predicting response to treatment with bevacizumab are still lacking. Addition of bevacizumab to regimens based on fluoropyrimidines or irinotecan has been shown to improve overall survival in treatment-naïve patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Similarly, a significant increase in overall survival rate is achieved by adding bevacizumab to fluoropyrimidines and oxaliplatin in patients with disease progression. Bevacizumab has been found to be effective even when used as third-line therapy and later. In addition, cohort studies have shown that bevacizumab improves survival significantly despite disease progression. Finally, bevacizumab therapy in the neoadjuvant setting for the treatment of liver metastasis is well tolerated, safe, and effective. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 29 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 17% |
| Researcher | 4 | 14% |
| Lecturer | 3 | 10% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 17% |
| Unknown | 5 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 48% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 14% |
| Engineering | 2 | 7% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 7 | 24% |
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 25 September 2012.
All research outputs
#22,758,309
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from OncoTargets and therapy
#2,078
of 3,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#169,750
of 188,177 outputs
Outputs of similar age from OncoTargets and therapy
#11
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 188,177 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.