↓ Skip to main content

Padeliporfin vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy versus active surveillance in men with low-risk prostate cancer (CLIN1001 PCM301): an open-label, phase 3, randomised controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Lancet Oncology, February 2017
Altmetric Badge
1674

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#3 of 4,989)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
194 news outlets
blogs
4 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
159 tweeters
facebook
8 Facebook pages
googleplus
6 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
103 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
163 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Padeliporfin vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy versus active surveillance in men with low-risk prostate cancer (CLIN1001 PCM301): an open-label, phase 3, randomised controlled trial
Published in
Lancet Oncology, February 2017
DOI 10.1016/s1470-2045(16)30661-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Abdel-Rahmène Azzouzi, Sébastien Vincendeau, Eric Barret, Antony Cicco, François Kleinclauss, Henk G van der Poel, Christian G Stief, Jens Rassweiler, Georg Salomon, Eduardo Solsona, Antonio Alcaraz, Teuvo T Tammela, Derek J Rosario, Francisco Gomez-Veiga, Göran Ahlgren, Fawzi Benzaghou, Bertrand Gaillac, Billy Amzal, Frans M J Debruyne, Gaëlle Fromont, Christian Gratzke, Mark Emberton

Abstract

Vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy, a novel tissue-preserving treatment for low-risk prostate cancer, has shown favourable safety and efficacy results in single-arm phase 1 and 2 studies. We compared this treatment with the standard of care, active surveillance, in men with low-risk prostate cancer in a phase 3 trial. This randomised controlled trial was done in 47 European university centres and community hospitals. Men with low-risk, localised prostate cancer (Gleason pattern 3) who had received no previous treatment were randomly assigned (1:1) to vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy (4 mg/kg padeliporfin intravenously over 10 min and optical fibres inserted into the prostate to cover the desired treatment zone and subsequent activation by laser light 753 nm with a fixed power of 150 mW/cm for 22 min 15 s) or active surveillance. Randomisation was done by a web-based allocation system stratified by centre with balanced blocks of two or four patients. Best practice for active surveillance at the time of study design was followed (ie, biopsy at 12-month intervals and prostate-specific antigen measurement and digital rectal examination at 3-month intervals). The co-primary endpoints were treatment failure (histological progression of cancer from low to moderate or high risk or death during 24 months' follow-up) and absence of definite cancer (absence of any histology result definitely positive for cancer at month 24). Analysis was by intention to treat. Treatment was open-label, but investigators assessing primary efficacy outcomes were masked to treatment allocation. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01310894. Between March 8, 2011, and April 30, 2013, we randomly assigned 206 patients to vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy and 207 patients to active surveillance. Median follow-up was 24 months (IQR 24-25). The proportion of participants who had disease progression at month 24 was 58 (28%) of 206 in the vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy group compared with 120 (58%) of 207 in the active surveillance group (adjusted hazard ratio 0·34, 95% CI 0·24-0·46; p<0·0001). 101 (49%) men in the vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy group had a negative prostate biopsy result at 24 months post treatment compared with 28 (14%) men in the active surveillance group (adjusted risk ratio 3·67, 95% CI 2·53-5·33; p<0·0001). Vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy was well tolerated. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were prostatitis (three [2%] in the vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy group vs one [<1%] in the active surveillance group), acute urinary retention (three [2%] vs one [<1%]) and erectile dysfunction (two [1%] vs three [1%]). The most common serious adverse event in the vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy group was retention of urine (15 patients; severe in three); this event resolved within 2 months in all patients. The most common serious adverse event in the active surveillance group was myocardial infarction (three patients). Padeliporfin vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy is a safe, effective treatment for low-risk, localised prostate cancer. This treatment might allow more men to consider a tissue-preserving approach and defer or avoid radical therapy. Steba Biotech.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 159 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 163 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Finland 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 160 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 25 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 10%
Student > Master 17 10%
Other 16 10%
Student > Postgraduate 16 10%
Other 53 33%
Unknown 19 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 68 42%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 6%
Chemistry 8 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 4%
Other 26 16%
Unknown 30 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1674. 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 27 November 2019.
All research outputs
#1,321
of 14,007,708 outputs
Outputs from Lancet Oncology
#3
of 4,989 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74
of 375,949 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Lancet Oncology
#1
of 133 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,007,708 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,989 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 375,949 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 133 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.