↓ Skip to main content

IGF-IR Targeted Therapy: Past, Present and Future

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in endocrinology, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
54 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 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
IGF-IR Targeted Therapy: Past, Present and Future
Published in
Frontiers in endocrinology, December 2014
DOI 10.3389/fendo.2014.00224
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joseph A. M. J. L. Janssen, Aimee J. Varewijck

Abstract

The IGF-I receptor (IGF-IR) has been studied as an anti-cancer target. However, monotherapy trials with IGF-IR targeted antibodies or with IGF-IR specific tyrosine kinase inhibitors have, overall, been very disappointing in the clinical setting. This review discusses potential reasons why IGF-I R targeted therapy fails to inhibit growth of human cancers. It has become clear that intracellular signaling pathways are highly interconnected and complex instead of being linear and simple. One of the most potent candidates for failure of IGF-IR targeted therapy is the insulin receptor isoform A (IR-A). Activation of the IR-A by insulin-like growth factor-II (IGF-II) bypasses the IGF-IR and its inhibition. Another factor may be that anti-cancer treatment may reduce IGF-IR expression. IGF-IR blocking drugs may also induce hyperglycemia and hyperinsulinemia, which may further stimulate cell growth. In addition, circulating IGF-IRs may reduce therapeutic effects of IGF-IR targeted therapy. Nevertheless, it is still possible that the IGF-IR may be a useful adjuvant or secondary target for the treatment of human cancers. Development of functional inhibitors that affect the IGF-IR and IR-A may be necessary to overcome resistance and to make IGF-IR targeted therapy successful. Drugs that modify alternative downstream effects of the IGF-IR, so called "biasing agonists," should also be considered.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Belgium 1 4%
Unknown 23 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 21%
Researcher 4 17%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Professor 2 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Other 6 25%
Unknown 3 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 29%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 21%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 8%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 4 17%
Attention Score in Context

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 26 January 2015.
All research outputs
#19,962,154
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in endocrinology
#5,763
of 13,033 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#252,320
of 359,343 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in endocrinology
#37
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,033 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 359,343 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 67 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.