↓ Skip to main content

Evolution to plasmablastic lymphoma evades CD19‐directed chimeric antigen receptor T cells

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of Haematology, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
85 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 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
Evolution to plasmablastic lymphoma evades CD19‐directed chimeric antigen receptor T cells
Published in
British Journal of Haematology, June 2015
DOI 10.1111/bjh.13562
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrew G Evans, Paul G Rothberg, W Richard Burack, Scott F Huntington, David L Porter, Jonathan W Friedberg, Jane L Liesveld

Abstract

A patient with relapsed and refractory chronic lymphocytic leukaemia with Richter transformation was treated with chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-modified T cells targeted for CD19 but later relapsed with a clonally related plasmablastic lymphoma. The loss of most routine markers of pre-plasma cell or B lymphoid differentiation (including CD19) highlights the ability of such mature lymphomas to evade lineage-specific targeted immunotherapy by differentiating along pathways comparable to their normal cellular counterparts. Molecular genetic evaluation demonstrated multiple independent lines of CD19-negative disease that eventually evolved in this single patient. Such plasticity represents potential challenges for antigen-directed CAR-T cell therapy, while serving as a testament to the selective pressure exerted by these engineered T cells over time.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 74 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 18%
Student > Master 12 16%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Other 5 7%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 19 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 36%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 11%
Immunology and Microbiology 8 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 5%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 18 24%
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 29 September 2022.
All research outputs
#6,712,321
of 24,549,201 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of Haematology
#2,434
of 7,908 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,832
of 269,021 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of Haematology
#16
of 90 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,549,201 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,908 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 269,021 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 90 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.