| Title |
Monoclonal antibodies-based treatment in gastric cancer: current status and future perspectives
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Tumor Biology, November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13277-015-4408-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Giandomenico Roviello, Karol Polom, Roberto Petrioli, Luigi Marano, Daniele Marrelli, Giovanni Paganini, Vinno Savelli, Daniele Generali, Lorenzo De Franco, Andrea Ravelli, Franco Roviello |
| Abstract |
Gastric cancer (GC) is the second leading cause of cancer-related death, and despite having improved treatment modalities over the last decade, for most patients, only modest improvements have been seen in overall survival. Recent progress in understanding the molecular biology of GC and the related signaling pathways offers, from the clinical point of view, promising advances for selected groups of patients. In the past, targeted therapies have significantly impacted the treatment strategy of several common solid tumors such as breast, colorectal, and lung cancers. Unfortunately, translational and clinical research shows fewer encouraging targeted treatments with regards to the GC. To date, only two monoclonal antibodies (mAb), named trastuzumab and ramucirumab, are approved for the treatment of advanced GC, suggesting that in GC, maybe more than in other cancers, effective targeted therapy requires patient selection based on precise predictive molecular biomarkers. The aim of this review is to summarize the available data on the clinical advantages offered by the use of mAbs in the treatment of advanced/metastatic GC. Future perspective is also discussed. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 50 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 20% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 12% |
| Other | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 6 | 12% |
| Unknown | 11 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 50% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Unknown | 15 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 07 December 2017.
All research outputs
#7,224,054
of 22,832,057 outputs
Outputs from Tumor Biology
#359
of 2,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,093
of 281,840 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Tumor Biology
#24
of 304 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,832,057 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,622 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 281,840 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 304 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.