↓ Skip to main content

Management of Dermatologic Complications of Lung Cancer Therapies

Overview of attention for article published in Current Treatment Options in Oncology, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
Title
Management of Dermatologic Complications of Lung Cancer Therapies
Published in
Current Treatment Options in Oncology, September 2015
DOI 10.1007/s11864-015-0368-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Silvina B. Pugliese, Joel W. Neal, Bernice Y. Kwong

Abstract

In recent years, oncogene-directed targeted agents and immunotherapies have expanded the treatment armamentarium for advanced lung cancer and, in particular, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Along with extended survival, these agents are accompanied by a host of cutaneous complications that affect the skin, hair, and nails. These skin complications range from the well-characterized papulopustular (acneiform) eruption of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors to the emerging characterization of lichenoid skin eruptions seen during treatment with antibodies targeting the programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) and programmed cell death protein 1 ligand (PD-L1). When promptly recognized and accurately diagnosed, most cutaneous adverse events can be managed with supportive treatments, avoiding the need to interrupt antitumor therapy. Furthermore, preemptive management of skin problems can lead to significantly decreased severity of many cutaneous complications of these therapies. We encourage close collaboration between dermatologists and oncologists to better characterize cutaneous toxicity, select appropriate management, and avoid unnecessary dose reduction or discontinuation while simultaneously improving patient quality of life.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 2%
Unknown 57 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 19%
Student > Bachelor 9 16%
Other 6 10%
Researcher 4 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 7%
Other 7 12%
Unknown 17 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 47%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Environmental Science 2 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 18 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 30 October 2015.
All research outputs
#18,429,829
of 22,831,537 outputs
Outputs from Current Treatment Options in Oncology
#458
of 662 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#192,511
of 267,003 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Treatment Options in Oncology
#6
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,831,537 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 662 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 267,003 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.