↓ Skip to main content

Molecular aberrations, targeted therapy, and renal cell carcinoma: current state-of-the-art

Overview of attention for article published in Cancer and Metastasis Reviews, November 2014
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 (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs

Citations

dimensions_citation
75 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
72 Mendeley
Title
Molecular aberrations, targeted therapy, and renal cell carcinoma: current state-of-the-art
Published in
Cancer and Metastasis Reviews, November 2014
DOI 10.1007/s10555-014-9533-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

J. Michael Randall, Frederick Millard, Razelle Kurzrock

Abstract

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is among the most prevalent malignancies in the USA. Most RCCs are sporadic, but hereditary syndromes associated with RCC account for 2-3 % of cases and include von Hippel-Lindau, hereditary leiomyomatosis, Birt-Hogg-Dube, tuberous sclerosis, hereditary papillary RCC, and familial renal carcinoma. In the past decade, our understanding of the genetic mutations associated with sporadic forms of RCC has increased considerably, with the most common mutations in clear cell RCC seen in the VHL, PBRM1, BAP1, and SETD2 genes. Among these, BAP1 mutations are associated with aggressive disease and decreased survival. Several targeted therapies for advanced RCC have been approved and include sunitinib, sorafenib, pazopanib, axitinib (tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGFR) activity), everolimus, and temsirolimus (TKIs that inhibit mTORC1, the downstream part of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway). High-dose interleukin 2 (IL-2) immunotherapy and the combination of bevacizumab plus interferon-α are also approved treatments. At present, there are no predictive genetic markers to direct therapy for RCC, perhaps because the vast majority of trials have been evaluated in unselected patient populations, with advanced metastatic disease. This review will focus on our current understanding of the molecular genetics of RCC, and how this may inform therapeutics.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 72 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 15%
Student > Bachelor 11 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Student > Master 6 8%
Other 12 17%
Unknown 10 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 29%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Neuroscience 2 3%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 18 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 11 November 2016.
All research outputs
#2,937,410
of 22,796,179 outputs
Outputs from Cancer and Metastasis Reviews
#60
of 807 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,326
of 262,234 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer and Metastasis Reviews
#1
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,796,179 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 262,234 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.