↓ Skip to main content

Comparative efficacy of everolimus plus exemestane versus fulvestrant for hormone-receptor-positive advanced breast cancer following progression/recurrence after endocrine therapy: a network meta-analy…

Overview of attention for article published in Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, November 2013
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 (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
Title
Comparative efficacy of everolimus plus exemestane versus fulvestrant for hormone-receptor-positive advanced breast cancer following progression/recurrence after endocrine therapy: a network meta-analysis
Published in
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, November 2013
DOI 10.1007/s10549-013-2778-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas Bachelot, Rachael McCool, Steven Duffy, Julie Glanville, Danielle Varley, Kelly Fleetwood, Jie Zhang, Guy Jerusalem

Abstract

Postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer recurring/progressing on or after initial (adjuvant or first-line) endocrine therapy may be treated multiple times with one of several endocrine or combinatorial targeted treatment options before initiating chemotherapy. In the absence of direct head-to-head comparisons of these treatment options, an indirect comparison can inform treatment choice. This network meta-analysis compared the efficacy of everolimus plus exemestane with that of fulvestrant 250 and 500 mg in the advanced breast cancer setting following adjuvant or first-line endocrine therapy. The reported hazard ratios (HRs) for progression-free survival (PFS) or time to progression from six studies that formed a network to compare everolimus plus exemestane (BOLERO-2 trial) with fulvestrant were analyzed by means of a Bayesian network meta-analysis. In the primary comparison (PFS analysis based on the local review of disease progression from BOLERO-2 with the data from the other studies), everolimus plus exemestane appeared to be more efficacious than both fulvestrant 250 mg (HR = 0.47; 95 % credible interval [CrI] 0.38-0.58) and 500 mg (HR = 0.59; 95 % CrI 0.45-0.77). Similar results were obtained in an alternate comparison based on central review of disease progression from BOLERO-2 with the data from the other studies (HR = 0.40; 95 % CrI 0.31-0.51 and HR = 0.50; 95 % CrI 0.37-0.67, respectively), and in a subgroup analysis of patients who had received prior aromatase inhibitor therapy (HR = 0.47; 95 % CrI 0.38-0.58 and HR = 0.55; 95 % CrI 0.40-0.76, respectively). These results suggest that everolimus plus exemestane may be more efficacious than fulvestrant in patients with advanced breast cancer who progress on or after adjuvant or first-line therapy with a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 52 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 15%
Other 6 11%
Unspecified 5 9%
Student > Master 5 9%
Other 17 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 51%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 15%
Unspecified 7 13%
Psychology 2 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Other 7 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 03 December 2013.
All research outputs
#1,852,133
of 12,334,049 outputs
Outputs from Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
#385
of 3,102 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,451
of 210,166 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
#12
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,334,049 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,102 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 210,166 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 67 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.