↓ Skip to main content

Efficacy and Safety of Neoadjuvant Treatment with Bevacizumab, Liposomal Doxorubicin, Cyclophosphamide and Paclitaxel Combination in Locally/Regionally Advanced, HER2-Negative, Grade III at…

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Drug Investigation, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
Title
Efficacy and Safety of Neoadjuvant Treatment with Bevacizumab, Liposomal Doxorubicin, Cyclophosphamide and Paclitaxel Combination in Locally/Regionally Advanced, HER2-Negative, Grade III at Premenopausal Status Breast Cancer: A Phase II Study
Published in
Clinical Drug Investigation, May 2018
DOI 10.1007/s40261-018-0655-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ekaterini C. Tampaki, Athanasios Tampakis, Constantinos E. Alifieris, Dimitrios Krikelis, Anastasia Pazaiti, Michalis Kontos, Dimitrios T. Trafalis

Abstract

In the era of personalized therapy, targeted treatment in specific patient populations is mandated. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant treatment on locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) with a monoclonal agent against vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), bevacizumab plus chemotherapy combination of liposomal doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide and paclitaxel (PLAC-B). Patients enrolled were at premenopausal status and characterized by human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative, hormone-receptor positive (estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor-positive [ER/PR+]) or triple-negative (TNBC), LABC (T > 3 cm), with high-grade ductal carcinoma. Patients had to have a measurable disease and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) of 0, with adequate hematologic, renal, and hepatic function. Patients received intravenous liposomal doxorubicin 30 mg/m2, cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m2, paclitaxel 120 mg/m2, and bevacizumab 8 mg/kg on day 1 of 15-day cycles for four cycles (four administrations as neoadjuvant treatment). The primary endpoint was complete clinical (cCR) and pathologic (pCR) response rates, while secondary endpoints included safety, breast-conserving surgery (BCS) conversion rate, and disease-free survival (DFS). Sixty-two women were enrolled; 20 were ER/PR+ and 42 had TNBC. All underwent surgery, six received mastectomy, and 56 (90.3%) received BCS, with an equal conversion rate from initial indication for mastectomy. cCR was 25.8%. pCR in the breast and axilla occurred in 24 patients (38.7%). pCR was 42.9% for TNBC and 30% for ER/PR+. Hematologic adverse events (AEs) included neutropenia (74.2% total; 22.6% grade 3 [G3]) and febrile neutropenia (6.5% G3); non-hematologic G3 AEs included nausea (6.5%), mucositis (9.7%), and infection (3.2%), all of which were managed without negative sequelae. Over a 3-year follow-up, all patients were alive and DFS was 87.1%. PLAC-B as neoadjuvant treatment of this subpopulation with TNBC and ER/PR+ patients is effective and safe. Further studies are necessitated.

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 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 15%
Other 4 15%
Researcher 3 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 11%
Student > Master 2 7%
Other 6 22%
Unknown 5 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 37%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 7%
Engineering 2 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 5 19%

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 15 May 2018.
All research outputs
#11,502,908
of 12,942,974 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Drug Investigation
#541
of 587 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#234,871
of 270,939 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Drug Investigation
#12
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,942,974 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 587 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. 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 270,939 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 15 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.