↓ Skip to main content

Immune-checkpoint inhibitors in non-small cell lung cancer: A tool to improve patients’ selection

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
91 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
Immune-checkpoint inhibitors in non-small cell lung cancer: A tool to improve patients’ selection
Published in
Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology, June 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2018.06.016
Pubmed ID
Authors

Giuseppe Luigi Banna, Francesco Passiglia, Francesca Colonese, Stefania Canova, Jessica Menis, Alfredo Addeo, Antonio Russo, Diego Luigi Cortinovis

Abstract

The identification of reliable predictive biomarkers of efficacy or resistance to immune-oncology (I-O) agents is a major issue for translational research and clinical practice. However, along with PDL1 and molecular features other clinical, radiological and laboratory factors can be considered for the selection of those patients who would not be the best candidate for immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICPIs). We examined these factors, emerging from the results of currently available studies in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), aiming to provide a useful and manageable tool which can help Oncologists in their everyday clinical practice. A thorough patient evaluation and close clinical monitoring, due to limited, early or inconclusive currently available data, should be deserved for patients with a pre-existing symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, age >75 years, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) ≥ 1, a time to progression (TTP) < three months and progressive disease (PD) as the best response to the previous treatment, hepatitis or HIV-infections, high neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR), or on treatment with high-dose steroids, when the use of ICPIs is considered. Limited data are available to consider that ICPIs are safe in patients with interstitial lung disease, bronchiolitis obliterans organizing pneumonia and autommune diseases. Early evidence on steroids, vaccinations and antibiotics suggest their possible interaction with ICPIs and need to be more investigated in clinical trials. Oncogene-addicted NSCLC harboring EGFR-mutations and low tumor-infiltrating T-lymphocytes (TILs) seems not to gain benefit from I-O.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 91 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 10%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Other 8 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Other 15 16%
Unknown 31 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 27%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 4%
Computer Science 3 3%
Other 16 18%
Unknown 34 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 16 August 2018.
All research outputs
#7,151,813
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology
#615
of 1,947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#116,014
of 342,125 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology
#9
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,947 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 342,125 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 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 74% of its contemporaries.