↓ Skip to main content

Incorporation of biomarkers in phase II studies of recurrent glioblastoma

Overview of attention for article published in Tumor Biology, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
Title
Incorporation of biomarkers in phase II studies of recurrent glioblastoma
Published in
Tumor Biology, December 2014
DOI 10.1007/s13277-014-2960-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Toni Rose Jue, Elizabeth Hovey, Sara Davis, Oliver Carleton, Kerrie L. McDonald

Abstract

The survival trends for glioblastoma (GBM) patients have remained largely static, reflecting a lack of improvement in the therapeutic options for patients. Less than 5 % of newly diagnosed GBM survives more than 5 years. Tumor relapse is nearly universal and the majority of patients do not respond to further systemic therapy. The results from phase II studies conducted with recurrent GBM patients have not translated to successful confirmatory studies and thus we have reached a significant roadblock in the development of new treatments for patients with recurrent GBM. The development of new, active, and potentially targeted drugs for the treatment of recurrent GBM represents a major unmet need. The incorporation of diagnostic/companion biomarker combinations into the phase II studies and appropriate stratification of the patients is lagging significantly behind other larger cancer groups such as breast, non-small cell lung cancer, and melanoma. We herein carried out a systematic review of the phase II clinical studies conducted in patients with recurrent GBM (2010-2013 inclusive) to assess the degree of biomarker incorporation within the clinical trial design.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 4%
Unknown 22 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 30%
Other 3 13%
Student > Postgraduate 3 13%
Researcher 3 13%
Student > Master 2 9%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 2 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 48%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 4%
Unspecified 1 4%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 2 9%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 02 March 2017.
All research outputs
#15,313,289
of 22,775,504 outputs
Outputs from Tumor Biology
#1,050
of 2,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#208,593
of 352,836 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Tumor Biology
#61
of 160 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,775,504 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,622 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 352,836 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 160 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 58% of its contemporaries.