↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Bortezomib for the treatment of multiple myeloma

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2016
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 (86th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
16 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
94 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
200 Mendeley
Title
Bortezomib for the treatment of multiple myeloma
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010816.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kathleen Scott, Patrick J Hayden, Andrea Will, Keith Wheatley, Imelda Coyne

Abstract

Multiple myeloma is a malignancy of plasma cells accounting for approximately 1% of cancers and 12% of haematological malignancies. The first-in-class proteasome inhibitor, bortezomib, is commonly used to treat newly diagnosed as well as relapsed/refractory myeloma, either as single agent or combined with other therapies. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effects of bortezomib on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), response rate (RR), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), adverse events (AEs) and treatment-related death (TRD). We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and EMBASE (till 27 January 2016) as well as conference proceedings and clinical trial registries for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared i) bortezomib versus no bortezomib with the same background therapy in each arm; ii) bortezomib versus no bortezomib with different background therapy in each arm or compared to other agent(s) and iii) bortezomib dose comparisons and comparisons of different treatment administrations and schedules. Two review authors independently extracted outcomes data and assessed risk of bias. We extracted hazard ratios (HR) and their confidence intervals for OS and PFS and odds ratios (OR) for response rates, AEs and TRD. We contacted trial authors to provide summary statistics if missing. We estimated Logrank statistics which were not available. We extracted HRQoL data, where available. We screened a total of 3667 records, identifying 16 relevant RCTs involving 5626 patients and included 12 trials in the meta-analyses. All trials were randomised and open-label studies. Two trials were published in abstract form and therefore we were unable to assess potential risk of bias in full.There is moderate-quality evidence that bortezomib prolongs OS (four studies, 1586 patients; Peto OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.92) and PFS (five studies, 1855 patients; Peto OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.74) from analysing trials of bortezomib versus no bortezomib with the same background therapy in each arm.There is high-quality evidence that bortezomib prolongs OS (five studies, 2532 patients; Peto OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.88) but low-quality evidence for PFS (four studies, 2489 patients; Peto OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.75) from analysing trials of bortezomib versus no bortezomib with different background therapy in each arm or compared to other agent(s).Four trials (N = 716) examined different doses, methods of administrations and treatment schedules and were reviewed qualitatively only.We identified four trials in the meta-analysis that measured time to progression (TTP) and were able to extract and analyse PFS data for three of the studies, while in the case of one study, we included TTP data as PFS data were not available. We therefore did not analyse TTP separately in this review.Patients treated with bortezomib have increased risk of thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, gastro-intestinal toxicities, peripheral neuropathy, infection and fatigue with the quality of evidence highly variable. There is high-quality evidence for increased risk of cardiac disorders from analysing trials of bortezomib versus no bortezomib with different background therapy in each arm or versus other agents. The risk of TRD in either comparison group analysed is uncertain due to the low quality of the evidence.Only four trials analysed HRQoL and the data could not be meta-analysed.Subgroup analyses by disease setting revealed improvements in all outcomes, whereas for therapy setting, an improved benefit for bortezomib was observed in all outcomes and subgroups except for OS following consolidation therapy. This meta-analysis found that myeloma patients receiving bortezomib benefited in terms of OS, PFS and response rate compared to those who did not receive bortezomib. This benefit was observed in trials of bortezomib versus no bortezomib with the same background therapy and in trials of bortezomib versus no bortezomib with different background therapy in each arm or compared to other agent(s). Further evaluation of newer proteasome inhibitors is required to ascertain whether these agents offer an improved risk-benefit profile, while more studies of HRQoL are also required.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 200 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 199 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 30 15%
Student > Bachelor 26 13%
Researcher 24 12%
Other 18 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 9%
Other 36 18%
Unknown 48 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 61 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 28 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 5%
Psychology 8 4%
Other 26 13%
Unknown 55 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 17 February 2022.
All research outputs
#2,306,141
of 21,806,258 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,928
of 12,115 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,978
of 279,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#89
of 181 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,806,258 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,115 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 279,712 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 181 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.