| Title |
Targeting Signaling Transduction Pathways in Bladder Cancer
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Oncology Reports, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11912-015-0477-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Phillip H. Abbosh, David J. McConkey, Elizabeth R. Plimack |
| Abstract |
Systemic therapy for urothelial carcinoma (UC) of the bladder has largely revolved around cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens. However, several recent clinical trials have explored the roles of targeted therapies which specifically inhibit signal transduction pathways. Simultaneously, a rationale for such therapies has come to the forefront of management of this disease because an overabundance of signaling pathways are genetically deranged as a result of point mutation or copy number alteration (CNA) as identified by several recent next generation sequencing (NGS) studies. Importantly, these derangements are found in all stages of disease, and therefore targeted therapies hold promise as a next step in the evolution of the medical management of both localized and metastatic UCC. We review the rationale for and progress in studying inhibition of signal transduction as a means of treatment of UCC. |
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 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 41 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 15% |
| Other | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 10% |
| Other | 6 | 15% |
| Unknown | 7 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 11 | 27% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 22% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 10% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 7% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Unknown | 10 | 24% |
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 05 March 2016.
All research outputs
#18,445,779
of 22,854,458 outputs
Outputs from Current Oncology Reports
#667
of 881 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#200,845
of 279,263 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Oncology Reports
#6
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,854,458 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 881 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 279,263 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 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.