↓ Skip to main content

Cardiotoxicity of Immunotherapy: Incidence, Diagnosis, and Management

Overview of attention for article published in Current Oncology Reports, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
58 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 Mendeley
Title
Cardiotoxicity of Immunotherapy: Incidence, Diagnosis, and Management
Published in
Current Oncology Reports, April 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11912-018-0690-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aarti Asnani

Abstract

This review describes cardiotoxicity associated with adoptive T cell therapy and immune checkpoint blockade. Cardiotoxicity is a rare but potentially fatal complication associated with novel immunotherapies. Both affinity-enhanced and chimeric antigen receptor T cells have been reported to cause hypotension, arrhythmia, and left ventricular dysfunction, typically in the setting of cytokine release syndrome. Immune checkpoint inhibitors are generally well-tolerated but have the potential to cause myocarditis, with clinical presentations ranging from asymptomatic cardiac biomarker elevation to heart failure, arrhythmia, and cardiogenic shock. Electrocardiography, cardiac biomarker measurement, and cardiac imaging are key components of the diagnostic evaluation. For suspected myocarditis, endomyocardial biopsy is recommended if the diagnosis remains unclear after initial testing. The incidence of immunotherapy-associated cardiotoxicity is likely underestimated and may increase as adoptive T cell therapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors are used in larger populations and for longer durations of therapy. Baseline and serial cardiac evaluation is recommended to facilitate early identification and treatment of cardiotoxicity.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 92 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 14%
Other 9 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 10%
Student > Master 7 8%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Other 16 17%
Unknown 32 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 40%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Mathematics 1 1%
Other 7 8%
Unknown 35 38%
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 21 July 2019.
All research outputs
#17,945,904
of 23,043,346 outputs
Outputs from Current Oncology Reports
#640
of 890 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#238,928
of 329,173 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Oncology Reports
#19
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,043,346 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 890 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 329,173 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.