↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Procarbazine, lomustine and vincristine for recurrent high-grade glioma

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
173 Mendeley
Title
Procarbazine, lomustine and vincristine for recurrent high-grade glioma
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011773.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Saurabh Parasramka, Goutham Talari, Myrna Rosenfeld, Jing Guo, John L Villano

Abstract

Recurrent high-grade glioma (HGG) carries an extremely poor prognosis. There is no current standard of care or guideline-based recommendations. Nitrosourea-based multidrug chemotherapy or PCV - procarbazine, lomustine (CCNU) and vincristine - is one of the treatment options at recurrence. There has been no meta-analysis which looks at the benefits and harms of PCV chemotherapy in adults with recurrent HGG. To assess the effectiveness and safety of procarbazine, lomustine, and vincristine (PCV) chemotherapy with other interventions in adults with recurrent high-grade glioma. To investigate whether predefined subgroups of people benefit more or less from chemotherapy. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL Issue 4, 2017), MEDLINE (1946 to 22 May 2017), and Embase (1980 to 22 May 2017). We searched trial registries including the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP; apps.who.int/trialsearch) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH; ClinicalTrials.gov). We searched the reference lists of all identified studies; the electronic table of contents of the Journal of Neuro-Oncology (1983 to 2016) and Neuro-Oncology (1999 to 2016); and conference abstracts from the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO 2004 to 2016). We also searched unpublished grey literature and other regional databases. There were no language restrictions. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-randomised trials (QRCTs), or controlled clinical trials (CCTs) where PCV was used to treat adults with recurrent HGG. Comparison arm included no chemotherapy, other second line chemotherapy or best supportive care. Two review authors extracted the data and undertook a 'Risk of bias' assessment and critical appraisal of the studies. We identified two RCTs meeting our inclusion criteria. The two trials tested different comparisons.One RCT included 35 participants and compared PCV with 'eight drugs in one day' multidrug chemotherapy, which is a combination of drugs with different mechanisms of action. Median survival was 6 months for the PCV group and 6.5 months for the 'eight drugs in one day' group. Adverse event outcomes were not graded or quantified. Progression-free survival (PFS) and quality of life (QoL) were not described in the methods and were not an outcome of interest. The sample size in this study was small, which lead to insufficient statistical power to detect clinical differences. According to the GRADE approach we judged the quality of evidence to be low for survival outcome and very low for chemotherapy toxicityThe second multi-institutional RCT included 447 participants and compared PCV with Temozolomide (TMZ). Participants were randomised into three arms to receive PCV, and two different regimens of TMZ in a 2:1:1 ratio at first recurrence. The trial reported a median overall survival of 6.7 months and 7.2 months for the PCV and TMZ group respectively. It reported a PFS of 3.6 months for the PCV group and 4.7 months for the TMZ group. There was no observed difference of effect on overall survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0.91, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.11; P = 0.35) or PFS (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.08; P = 0.23) in participants receiving PCV or TMZ chemotherapy. The proportion of people with at least one grade 3 or 4 adverse event was not clinically important at 9.2% versus 12.2% in PCV and TMZ arms respectively. Mean QoL scores calculated at baseline, 12 weeks and 24 weeks was 51.9 versus 59.8 favouring TMZ (P = 0.04) which is statistically but not clinically significant and was less than the pre-defined 10 point change for moderate improvement. We judged the GRADE quality of evidence to be moderate for overall survival, PFS, and chemotherapy toxicity and low for QoL. Evidence is based on a single large trial analysis as the other trial was small, with inadequate power to detect survival difference. Chemotherapy-naive patients with HGG at first recurrence when treated with PCV or TMZ have similar survival and time-to-progression outcomes. Adverse events are similar and QoL scores are statistically but not clinically significant between TMZ and PCV. Further RCTs should be conducted with adequate power following CONSORT guidelines with emphasis on QoL outcomes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 tweeters 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 173 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 173 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 14%
Student > Bachelor 19 11%
Researcher 14 8%
Student > Postgraduate 13 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 8%
Other 32 18%
Unknown 58 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 8%
Unspecified 10 6%
Psychology 7 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 4%
Other 27 16%
Unknown 64 37%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 18 May 2020.
All research outputs
#4,749,004
of 22,992,311 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,138
of 12,348 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#83,144
of 317,089 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#175
of 272 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,992,311 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,348 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.6. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 317,089 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 272 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.