↓ Skip to main content

The Rationale and Emerging Use of Neoadjuvant Immune Checkpoint Blockade for Solid Malignancies

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Surgical Oncology, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Rationale and Emerging Use of Neoadjuvant Immune Checkpoint Blockade for Solid Malignancies
Published in
Annals of Surgical Oncology, March 2018
DOI 10.1245/s10434-018-6379-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emily Z. Keung, Esosa U. Ukponmwan, Alexandria P. Cogdill, Jennifer A. Wargo

Abstract

Unprecedented advances in the treatment of cancer have occurred through the use of immunotherapy, with several agents currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of widespread metastatic disease across cancer types. Immune checkpoint blockade represents a particularly promising class of agents that block inhibitory molecules on the surface of T cells, resulting in their activation and propagation of an immune response. Treatment with these agents may re-invigorate anti-tumor immunity, resulting in therapeutic responses, and use of these agents currently is being studied in the adjuvant setting. Additionally, a strong rationale exists for their use in the neoadjuvant setting for high-risk resectable disease (e.g., regional nodal disease in the case of melanoma). This rationale is based on the relatively high risk of relapse for these patients, as well as on scientific evidence suggesting that long-term immunologic memory and tumor control may be superior in the setting of treatment for an intact tumor (i.e., neoadjuvant therapy) as opposed to treatment in the setting of micrometastatic disease (e.g., adjuvant treatment). The potential advantages of this approach and the current landscape for neoadjuvant immune checkpoint blockade is discussed in this report, as well as caveats that should be considered by clinicians contemplating this strategy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 21%
Student > Bachelor 6 15%
Student > Postgraduate 4 10%
Other 3 8%
Lecturer 2 5%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 10 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 36%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 10%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 8%
Neuroscience 2 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 11 28%
Attention Score in Context

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 13 June 2018.
All research outputs
#7,845,880
of 25,718,113 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#2,682
of 7,383 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,320
of 347,143 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#49
of 96 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,718,113 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,383 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 347,143 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 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 96 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.