↓ Skip to main content

Immunotherapy in Breast Cancer: the Emerging Role of PD-1 and PD-L1

Overview of attention for article published in Current Oncology Reports, August 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 (75th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
100 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
167 Mendeley
Title
Immunotherapy in Breast Cancer: the Emerging Role of PD-1 and PD-L1
Published in
Current Oncology Reports, August 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11912-017-0627-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

François Bertucci, Anthony Gonçalves

Abstract

The purpose of the review is to summarize the data regarding PD-L1 expression in breast cancer and the results of first clinical trials with PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors in patients with metastatic breast cancer. PD-L1 expression is heterogeneous across primary breast cancers, and is generally associated with the presence of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and the presence of poor-prognosis features such as high grade, and aggressive molecular subtypes (triple-negative (TN), basal, HER2-enriched). Early phase clinical trials using PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors alone or in combination have shown objective tumor responses and durable long-term disease control, in heavily pre-treated patients, notably in the TN subtype. Blockade of PD-1 or PD-L1 shows impressive antitumor activity in some subsets of breast cancer patients. Many clinical trials are ongoing in the metastatic and neoadjuvant setting, alone and in combination with chemotherapy, targeted therapy, radiotherapy, and/or other immune therapy. The identification of biomarkers predictive for a clinical benefit is warranted.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 167 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 167 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 11%
Student > Bachelor 19 11%
Researcher 17 10%
Student > Master 16 10%
Student > Postgraduate 11 7%
Other 31 19%
Unknown 54 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 22%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 28 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 7 4%
Other 19 11%
Unknown 58 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 October 2017.
All research outputs
#4,458,334
of 22,997,544 outputs
Outputs from Current Oncology Reports
#152
of 890 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,090
of 318,015 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Oncology Reports
#4
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,997,544 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 890 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 318,015 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.