↓ Skip to main content

Efficacy of PD-1

Overview of attention for article published in Journal for Immunotherapy of Cancer, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
27 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
158 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
106 Mendeley
Title
Efficacy of PD-1 & PD-L1 inhibitors in older adults: a meta-analysis
Published in
Journal for Immunotherapy of Cancer, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40425-018-0336-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rawad Elias, Anita Giobbie-Hurder, Nadine Jackson McCleary, Patrick Ott, F. Stephen Hodi, Osama Rahma

Abstract

Immune checkpoint inhibitors targeting PD-1/PD-L1 pathway demonstrated promising activities in variety of malignancies, however little is known regarding their efficacy in adults aged ≥65 years. We conducted a systematic review and a study-level meta-analysis to explore efficacy of ICIs based on age, younger vs older than 65 years. We included in this analysis randomized controlled phase II or III studies in patients with metastatic solid tumors that compared efficacy of PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors to a non-PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor. Aggregated estimates of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) are based on random/mixed effects (RE) models to allow for heterogeneity between the studies. Initial search identified 53 articles, 17 were randomized controlled trials that compared nivolumab, pembrolizumab or atezolizumab to chemotherapy or targeted therapy. Only 9 trials reported hazard ratiios (HR) for OS based on age and were included in this meta-analysis. Out of those studies seven reported HR for PFS but only 4 studies included subgroup-analysis based on age for PFS. The overall estimated random-effects HR for death was 0.64 with 95% CI of 0.54-0.76 in patients ≥65 years vs. 0.68 with 95% CI of 0.61-0.75 in patients < 65 years. The overall estimated random-effects for HR for progression was 0.74 with 95% CI of 0.60-0.92 in patients ≥65 years vs. 0.73 with 95% CI of 0.61-0.88 in patients < 65 years. PD-1 (nivolumab and pembrolizumab) and PD-L1 (atezolizumab) inhibitors had comparable efficacy in adults younger vs ≥ 65 years.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 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 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 106 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 15%
Other 14 13%
Student > Postgraduate 10 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 7%
Other 19 18%
Unknown 30 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 43%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 8 8%
Unknown 37 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 09 February 2019.
All research outputs
#1,538,084
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Journal for Immunotherapy of Cancer
#393
of 3,422 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,279
of 342,873 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal for Immunotherapy of Cancer
#8
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,422 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 342,873 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 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 68% of its contemporaries.