| Title |
Immunodynamics: a cancer immunotherapy trials network review of immune monitoring in immuno-oncology clinical trials
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal for Immunotherapy of Cancer, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40425-016-0118-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Holbrook E. Kohrt, Paul C. Tumeh, Don Benson, Nina Bhardwaj, Joshua Brody, Silvia Formenti, Bernard A. Fox, Jerome Galon, Carl H. June, Michael Kalos, Ilan Kirsch, Thomas Kleen, Guido Kroemer, Lewis Lanier, Ron Levy, H. Kim Lyerly, Holden Maecker, Aurelien Marabelle, Jos Melenhorst, Jeffrey Miller, Ignacio Melero, Kunle Odunsi, Karolina Palucka, George Peoples, Antoni Ribas, Harlan Robins, William Robinson, Tito Serafini, Paul Sondel, Eric Vivier, Jeff Weber, Jedd Wolchok, Laurence Zitvogel, Mary L. Disis, Martin A. Cheever, on behalf of the Cancer Immunotherapy Trials Network (CITN) |
| Abstract |
The efficacy of PD-1/PD-L1 targeted therapies in addition to anti-CTLA-4 solidifies immunotherapy as a modality to add to the anticancer arsenal. Despite raising the bar of clinical efficacy, immunologically targeted agents raise new challenges to conventional drug development paradigms by highlighting the limited relevance of assessing standard pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD). Specifically, systemic and intratumoral immune effects have not consistently correlated with standard relationships between systemic dose, toxicity, and efficacy for cytotoxic therapies. Hence, PK and PD paradigms remain inadequate to guide the selection of doses and schedules, both starting and recommended Phase 2 for immunotherapies. The promise of harnessing the immune response against cancer must also be considered in light of unique and potentially serious toxicities. Refining immune endpoints to better inform clinical trial design represents a high priority challenge. The Cancer Immunotherapy Trials Network investigators review the immunodynamic effects of specific classes of immunotherapeutic agents to focus immune assessment modalities and sites, both systemic and importantly intratumoral, which are critical to the success of the rapidly growing field of immuno-oncology. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 254 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 247 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 79 | 31% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 39 | 15% |
| Other | 31 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 20 | 8% |
| Professor | 12 | 5% |
| Other | 37 | 15% |
| Unknown | 36 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 53 | 21% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 45 | 18% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 42 | 17% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 35 | 14% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 12 | 5% |
| Other | 24 | 9% |
| Unknown | 43 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 456. 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 03 November 2016.
All research outputs
#60,351
of 25,461,852 outputs
Outputs from Journal for Immunotherapy of Cancer
#14
of 3,436 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,072
of 314,467 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal for Immunotherapy of Cancer
#3
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,461,852 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,436 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 314,467 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 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.