↓ Skip to main content

Hypersensitivity to antineoplastic agents: mechanisms and treatment with rapid desensitization

Overview of attention for article published in Cancer Immunology, Immunotherapy, May 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
84 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 Mendeley
Title
Hypersensitivity to antineoplastic agents: mechanisms and treatment with rapid desensitization
Published in
Cancer Immunology, Immunotherapy, May 2012
DOI 10.1007/s00262-012-1273-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mariana Castells, Maria del Carmen Sancho-Serra, Maria Simarro

Abstract

Hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to chemotherapy drugs, such as taxanes and platins, and to monoclonal antibodies limit their therapeutic use due to the severity of some reactions and the fear of inducing a potentially lethal reaction in highly sensitized patients. Patients who experience hypersensitivity reactions face the prospect of abandoning first-line treatment and switching to a second-line, less effective therapy. Some of these reactions are mast cell-mediated hypersensitivity reactions, a subset of which occur through an immunoglobulin (IgE)-dependent mechanism, and are thus true allergies. Others involve mast cells without a demonstrable IgE mechanism. Whether basophils can participate in these reactions has not been demonstrated. Rapid drug desensitization (RDD) is a procedure that induces temporary tolerance to a drug, allowing a medication allergic patient to receive the optimal agent for his or her disease. Through RDD, patients with IgE and non-IgE HSRs can safely be administered important medications while minimizing or completely inhibiting adverse reactions. Due to the clinical expansion and success of RDD, the molecular mechanisms inducing the temporary tolerization have been investigated and are partially understood, allowing for safer and more effective protocols. This article reviews the current literature on molecular mechanisms of RDD with an emphasis in our recent contributions to this field as well as the indications, methods and outcomes of RDD for taxanes, platins, and monoclonal antibodies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users 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 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Korea, Republic of 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 72 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 15%
Researcher 10 14%
Student > Postgraduate 8 11%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 8%
Other 14 19%
Unknown 18 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 46%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 3%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 18 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 May 2012.
All research outputs
#14,081,914
of 22,665,794 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Immunology, Immunotherapy
#1,985
of 2,885 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#96,160
of 163,915 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Immunology, Immunotherapy
#29
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,665,794 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,885 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 163,915 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.