↓ Skip to main content

Cancer Immunotherapy: Factors Important for the Evaluation of Safety in Nonclinical Studies

Overview of attention for article published in The AAPS Journal, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
Title
Cancer Immunotherapy: Factors Important for the Evaluation of Safety in Nonclinical Studies
Published in
The AAPS Journal, February 2018
DOI 10.1208/s12248-017-0184-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Danuta J. Herzyk, Helen G. Haggerty

Abstract

The development of novel therapies that can harnass the immune system to eradicate cancer is an area of intensive research. Several new biopharmaceuticals that target the immune system rather than the tumor itself have recently been approved and fundamentally transformed treatment of many cancer diseases. This success has intensified the search for new targets and modalities that could be developed as even more effective therapeutic agents either as monotherapy or in combination. While great benefits of novel immunotherapies in oncology are evident, the safety of these therapies has to also be addressed as their desired pharmacology, immune activation, can lead to "exaggerated" effects and toxicity. This review is focused on the unique challenges of the nonclinical safety assessment of monoclonal antibodies that target immune checkpoint inhibitors and costimulatory molecules. This class of molecules represents several approved drugs and many more drug candidates in clinical development, for which significant experience has been gained. Their development illustrates challenges regarding the predictivity of the animal models for assessing safety and setting starting doses for first-in-human trials as well as the translatability of nonclinical in vitro and in vivo data to the human findings. Based on learnings from the experience to date, factors to consider and novel approaches to explore are discussed to help address the unique safety issues of immuno-oncology drug development.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 19%
Student > Master 6 13%
Other 5 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 9 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 35%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 10%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 4%
Unspecified 1 2%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 11 23%
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 14 June 2018.
All research outputs
#18,639,173
of 23,090,520 outputs
Outputs from The AAPS Journal
#1,109
of 1,297 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#328,521
of 438,133 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The AAPS Journal
#25
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,090,520 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 1,297 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% 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 438,133 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.