↓ Skip to main content

The conflicting roles of tumor stroma in pancreatic cancer and their contribution to the failure of clinical trials: a systematic review and critical appraisal

Overview of attention for article published in Cancer and Metastasis Reviews, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
69 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 Mendeley
Title
The conflicting roles of tumor stroma in pancreatic cancer and their contribution to the failure of clinical trials: a systematic review and critical appraisal
Published in
Cancer and Metastasis Reviews, January 2015
DOI 10.1007/s10555-014-9541-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maarten F. Bijlsma, Hanneke W. M. van Laarhoven

Abstract

A nearly universal feature of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is an extensive presence of activated stroma. This stroma is thought to aid in various tumor-promoting processes and hampers response to therapy. Here, we aim to evaluate the evidence that supports this role of the stroma in PDAC with functional experiments in relevant models, discuss the clinical trials that have aimed to target the stroma in this disease, and examine recent work that explains why these clinical trials based on stroma-targeting strategies have thus far not achieved the expected success. We systematically searched PubMed through August 2014 with no restrictions to identify published peer-reviewed research articles assessing the effect of targeting the stroma on tumor growth or metastases in preclinical animal models. Five hundred and thirty articles were extracted of which 31 were included in the analysis. Unfortunately, due to the large variety in models and outcome measures, we could not perform a meta-analysis of our data. We find that despite an abundance of positive outcomes reported in previous studies on stroma targeting, a strong discrepancy exists with the outcomes of clinical trials and the more recent preclinical work that is in line with these trials. We explain the incongruities by the duration of stroma targeting and propose that chronic stroma targeting treatment is possibly detrimental in the treatment of this disease.

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 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 1%
Denmark 1 1%
Unknown 80 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 26%
Student > Master 17 21%
Researcher 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Student > Postgraduate 5 6%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 18 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 24%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 19 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 16%
Engineering 5 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Other 2 2%
Unknown 20 24%
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 18 January 2015.
All research outputs
#18,389,490
of 22,778,347 outputs
Outputs from Cancer and Metastasis Reviews
#673
of 807 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#255,435
of 352,269 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer and Metastasis Reviews
#5
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,778,347 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 807 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 352,269 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.