↓ Skip to main content

Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Strong Imbalance of Good and Bad Immunological Cops in the Tumor Microenvironment

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in immunology, May 2018
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
108 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
233 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
Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Strong Imbalance of Good and Bad Immunological Cops in the Tumor Microenvironment
Published in
Frontiers in immunology, May 2018
DOI 10.3389/fimmu.2018.01044
Pubmed ID
Authors

Etienne D. Foucher, Clément Ghigo, Salem Chouaib, Jérôme Galon, Juan Iovanna, Daniel Olive

Abstract

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is one of the most aggressive and lethal cancers with very few available treatments. For many decades, gemcitabine was the only treatment for patients with PDAC. A recent attempt to improve patient survival by combining this chemotherapy with FOLFIRINOX and nab-paclitaxel failed and instead resulted in increased toxicity. Novel therapies are urgently required to improve PDAC patient survival. New treatments in other cancers such as melanoma, non-small-cell lung cancer, and renal cancer have emerged, based on immunotherapy targeting the immune checkpoints cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 or programmed death 1 ligand. However, the first clinical trials using such immune checkpoint inhibitors in PDAC have had limited success. Resistance to immunotherapy in PDAC remains unclear but could be due to tissue components (cancer-associated fibroblasts, desmoplasia, hypoxia) and to the imbalance between immunosuppressive and effector immune populations in the tumor microenvironment. In this review, we analyzed the presence of "good and bad immunological cops" in PDAC and discussed the significance of changes in their balance.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 233 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 233 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 42 18%
Student > Bachelor 30 13%
Researcher 27 12%
Student > Master 25 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 5%
Other 29 12%
Unknown 68 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 60 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 36 15%
Immunology and Microbiology 21 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 16 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 4%
Other 12 5%
Unknown 78 33%
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 16 October 2018.
All research outputs
#16,827,702
of 25,523,622 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in immunology
#18,498
of 31,887 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#209,586
of 341,260 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in immunology
#511
of 744 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,523,622 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,887 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 341,260 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 744 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.