↓ Skip to main content

Keeping Tumors in Check: A Mechanistic Review of Clinical Response and Resistance to Immune Checkpoint Blockade in Cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Molecular Biology, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
patent
5 patents

Readers on

mendeley
107 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.
Article details
Title
Keeping Tumors in Check: A Mechanistic Review of Clinical Response and Resistance to Immune Checkpoint Blockade in Cancer
Published in
Journal of Molecular Biology, May 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.jmb.2018.05.030
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Immune checkpoints are a diverse set of inhibitory signals to the immune system that play a functional role in adaptive immune response and self-tolerance. Dysregulation of these pathways are a vital mechanism in the avoidance of immune destruction by tumor cells. Immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) refers to targeted strategies to disrupt the tumor co-opted immune suppression to enhance anti-tumor immunity. Cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) and programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) are two immune checkpoints that have the widest range of antibody-based therapies. These therapies have gone from promising approaches to FDA-approved first- and second-line agents for a number of immunogenic cancers. The burgeoning investigations of ICB efficacy in blood and solid cancers have underscored the importance of identifying the predictors of response and resistance to ICB. Identification of response correlates is made complicated by the observations of mixed reactions, or different responses in multiple lesions from the same patient, and delayed responses that can occur over a year after the induction therapy. Factors that can influence response and resistance in ICB can illuminate underlying molecular mechanisms of immune activation and suppression. These same response predictors can guide the identification of patients who would benefit from ICB, reduce off-target immune-relate adverse events, and facilitate the use of combinatorial therapies to increase efficacy. Here we review the underlying principles of immune checkpoint therapy, results of single-agent ICB clinical trials, and summarize the predictors of response and resistance.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

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.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 107 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 107 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 12%
Other 9 8%
Student > Master 9 8%
Student > Bachelor 8 7%
Other 17 16%
Unknown 34 32%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 24%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 12%
Immunology and Microbiology 11 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 14 13%
Unknown 37 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 14 October 2024.
All research outputs
#7,354,604
of 34,089,221 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Molecular Biology
#3,642
of 14,044 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,028
of 373,599 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Molecular Biology
#32
of 106 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,089,221 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,044 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 373,599 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 106 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.