↓ Skip to main content

Monitoring of patients with metastatic melanoma treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors using PET–CT

Overview of attention for article published in Cancer Immunology, Immunotherapy, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 Mendeley
Title
Monitoring of patients with metastatic melanoma treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors using PET–CT
Published in
Cancer Immunology, Immunotherapy, August 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00262-018-2229-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Antonia Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss

Abstract

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have revolutionized therapy of metastatic melanoma. The first ICI was ipilimumab, a cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated Ag 4 (CLTA-4) inhibitor with response rates of approximately 11% and disease control of 22%. The programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) inhibitors, such as pembrolizumab and nivolumab, led to longer progression-free survival and overall survival rates with fewer side effects. Molecular imaging techniques, such as positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) with 2-deoxy-2-(18F)fluoro-D-glucose (18F-FDG) are in use for staging and therapy monitoring of metastatic melanoma. However, classical radiological imaging criteria such as RECIST and WHO are not appropriate for the assessment of ICI response. New immune-related criteria have been defined such as iRECIST or irRC, which refer to radiological imaging modalities. Until now only a few studies report on immunotherapy response assessment based on 18F-FDG PET-CT. The classical criteria used for therapy monitoring with 18F-FDG PET, such as the EORTC criteria, are not suitable for ICI monitoring. In this focussed review, we present different criteria proposed for ICI monitoring with 18F-FDG and their limitations. One goal is to early identify non-responders to tailor immunotherapy. Another question is pseudoprogression and how to interpret the 18F-FDG images for response assessment. Finally, the definition of 18F-FDG criteria which can be used to identify progress is crucial and discussed in the review. The recent presented PET-based immune-related criteria, the so-called PERCIMT (PET Response Evaluation Criteria for IMmunoTherapy) are presented. Furthermore, new tracers are discussed.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 54 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 19%
Student > Master 9 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Other 10 19%
Unknown 12 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 41%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 7%
Engineering 3 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 18 33%
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 21 August 2018.
All research outputs
#20,530,891
of 23,100,534 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Immunology, Immunotherapy
#2,617
of 2,902 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#291,046
of 333,925 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Immunology, Immunotherapy
#42
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,100,534 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 2,902 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. 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 333,925 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 46 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.