| Title |
Combining Radiation and Immunotherapy: A New Systemic Therapy for Solid Tumors?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cancer Immunology Research, September 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1158/2326-6066.cir-14-0069 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Chad Tang, Xiaohong Wang, Hendrick Soh, Steven Seyedin, Maria Angelica Cortez, Sunil Krishnan, Erminia Massarelli, David Hong, Aung Naing, Adi Diab, Daniel Gomez, Huiping Ye, John Heymach, Ristuko Komaki, James P. Allison, Padmanee Sharma, James W. Welsh |
| Abstract |
With the recent success of checkpoint inhibitors and other immunomodulating agents, there has been renewed interest in the combination of such agents with radiation. The biologic premise behind such a strategy is that the tumor-antigen release achieved by localized radiation will promote specific tumor targeting by the adaptive immune system, which can be augmented further by systemic immune-stimulating agents. In this manner, clinicians hope to induce a phenomenon known as the abscopal effect, whereby localized radiation results in immune-mediated tumor regression in disease sites well outside of the radiation field. Herein, we present a comprehensive overview of the early clinical and preclinical evidence behind this approach. Cancer Immunol Res; 2(9); 831-8. ©2014 AACR. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 20% |
| Australia | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 224 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Korea, Republic of | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 218 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 45 | 20% |
| Researcher | 43 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 24 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 21 | 9% |
| Other | 18 | 8% |
| Other | 40 | 18% |
| Unknown | 33 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 83 | 37% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 33 | 15% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 23 | 10% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 12 | 5% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 7 | 3% |
| Other | 23 | 10% |
| Unknown | 43 | 19% |
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 2023.
All research outputs
#5,351,706
of 25,775,807 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Immunology Research
#603
of 1,593 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,792
of 249,461 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Immunology Research
#11
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,775,807 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,593 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 249,461 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 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 59% of its contemporaries.