↓ Skip to main content

Incidence of Immune-Related Adverse Events with Program Death Receptor-1- and Program Death Receptor-1 Ligand-Directed Therapies in Genitourinary Cancers

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in oncology, April 2017
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 (71st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users

Readers on

mendeley
77 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
Incidence of Immune-Related Adverse Events with Program Death Receptor-1- and Program Death Receptor-1 Ligand-Directed Therapies in Genitourinary Cancers
Published in
Frontiers in oncology, April 2017
DOI 10.3389/fonc.2017.00056
Pubmed ID
Authors

Benjamin L. Maughan, Erin Bailey, David M. Gill, Neeraj Agarwal

Abstract

Program death receptor-1 (PD-1) and program death receptor-1 ligand (PD-L1) inhibitors are increasingly being used in the clinic to treat a growing number of malignancies, including many genitourinary (GU) malignancies. These immune-based therapies have demonstrated a distinct toxicity profile compared to traditional chemotherapy and the targeted therapies directed at the vascular endothelial growth factor pathway or the mammalian target of rapamycin pathway. Autoimmune toxicity targeting the skin, gastrointestinal tract, or the endocrine organs are some of the more common adverse events (AEs) noted with these therapies. Here in, we report the results of a systematic review of the incidence of toxicities in GU cancers reported in the phase II or phase III clinical trials using single-agent PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors. Overall, the rate of serious (grades 3-4) AEs was noted in approximately 15% of patients. The AEs noted were similar between all the agents tested, highlighting the overall class effect of these therapies. The incidence in GU cancers is similar to those seen in other malignancies. Given the widespread and high volume real-world use of these agents, it is important for oncologists to be familiar with these side effects to minimize the risks for patients while undergoing therapy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 77 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 13 17%
Researcher 11 14%
Other 9 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Student > Master 5 6%
Other 12 16%
Unknown 21 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 34%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 25 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 25 April 2017.
All research outputs
#6,285,812
of 25,593,129 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in oncology
#1,994
of 22,728 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,316
of 324,203 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in oncology
#16
of 74 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,593,129 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,728 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 324,203 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 74 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.