↓ Skip to main content

Combining targeted therapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors in the treatment of metastatic melanoma

Overview of attention for article published in Cancer Biology & Medicine, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#29 of 331)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
patent
4 patents
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
69 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
107 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
Combining targeted therapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors in the treatment of metastatic melanoma
Published in
Cancer Biology & Medicine, December 2014
DOI 10.7497/j.issn.2095-3941.2014.04.002
Pubmed ID
Authors

Teresa Kim, Rodabe N Amaria, Christine Spencer, Alexandre Reuben, Zachary A Cooper, Jennifer A Wargo

Abstract

Melanoma is the deadliest form of skin cancer and has an incidence that is rising faster than any other solid tumor. Metastatic melanoma treatment has considerably progressed in the past five years with the introduction of targeted therapy (BRAF and MEK inhibitors) and immune checkpoint blockade (anti-CTLA4, anti-PD-1, and anti-PD-L1). However, each treatment modality has limitations. Treatment with targeted therapy has been associated with a high response rate, but with short-term responses. Conversely, treatment with immune checkpoint blockade has a lower response rate, but with long-term responses. Targeted therapy affects antitumor immunity, and synergy may exist when targeted therapy is combined with immunotherapy. This article presents a brief review of the rationale and evidence for the potential synergy between targeted therapy and immune checkpoint blockade. Challenges and directions for future studies are also proposed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 107 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 105 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 21%
Researcher 16 15%
Student > Master 16 15%
Student > Bachelor 15 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Other 18 17%
Unknown 14 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 29%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 22 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 15 14%
Engineering 6 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 5%
Other 10 9%
Unknown 18 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 April 2019.
All research outputs
#2,446,011
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Biology & Medicine
#29
of 331 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,686
of 369,146 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Biology & Medicine
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 331 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 369,146 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them