↓ Skip to main content

Pulmonary toxicities from targeted therapies: a review

Overview of attention for article published in Targeted Oncology, November 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
86 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 Mendeley
Title
Pulmonary toxicities from targeted therapies: a review
Published in
Targeted Oncology, November 2011
DOI 10.1007/s11523-011-0199-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicholas A. Barber, Apar Kishor Ganti

Abstract

Pulmonary toxicity is rarely seen with most commonly used targeted therapies. The endothelial growth factor receptor (EGFR) small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) gefitinib and erlotinib can cause interstitial lung disease (ILD). BCR-ABL tyrosine kinase inhibitors imatinib and dasatinib can cause pleural effusions. Infusion-related bronchospasm is common with the monoclonal antibodies to EGFR cetuximab and panitumumab, and case reports of bronchiolitis and pulmonary fibrosis have been described. Up to one-sixth of patients taking mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors get a reversible interstitial pneumonitis. Bevacizumab, the monoclonal antibody to vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), has been associated with hemoptysis and pulmonary embolism particularly in patients with squamous cell lung cancer. Infusion-related bronchospasms, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and interstitial pneumonitis can be seen with the anti-lymphocyte monoclonal antibodies rituximab, ofatumumab, and alemtuzumab. While most pulmonary toxicities from these therapies are mild and resolve promptly with dose reduction or discontinuation, it is important for the clinician to recognize these potential toxicities when faced with treatment-related complications. Discerning these pulmonary adverse effects may help in making decisions on diagnostic testing and therapy, particularly for those with pulmonary and cardiovascular co-morbidities.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Unknown 68 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 10 14%
Student > Bachelor 9 13%
Researcher 7 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 7%
Other 16 23%
Unknown 17 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 49%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Engineering 2 3%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 22 31%
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 15 November 2011.
All research outputs
#20,150,151
of 22,656,971 outputs
Outputs from Targeted Oncology
#505
of 545 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,313
of 142,154 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Targeted Oncology
#2
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,656,971 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 545 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 142,154 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.