↓ Skip to main content

Is it time for a new paradigm for systemic cancer treatment? Lessons from a century of cancer chemotherapy

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pharmacology, January 2013
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
97 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
153 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
Is it time for a new paradigm for systemic cancer treatment? Lessons from a century of cancer chemotherapy
Published in
Frontiers in Pharmacology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fphar.2013.00068
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarah Crawford

Abstract

U.S. SEER (Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results) data for age-adjusted mortality rates for all cancers combined for all races show only a modest overall 13% decline over the past 35 years. Moreover, the greatest contributor to cancer mortality is treatment-resistant metastatic disease. The accepted therapeutic paradigm for the past half-century for the treatment of advanced cancers has involved the use of systemic chemotherapy drugs cytotoxic for cycling cells (both normal and malignant) during DNA synthesis and/or mitosis. The failure of this therapeutic modality to achieve high-level, consistent rates of disease-free survival for some of the most common cancers, including tumors of the lung, colon breast, brain, melanoma, and others is the focus of this paper. A retrospective assessment of critical milestones in cancer chemotherapy indicates that most successful therapeutic regimens use cytotoxic cell cycle inhibitors in combined, maximum tolerated, dose-dense acute treatment regimens originally developed to treat acute lymphoblastic leukemia and some lymphomas. Early clinical successes in this area led to their wholesale application to the treatment of solid tumor malignancies that, unfortunately, has not produced consistent, long-term high cure rates for many common cancers. Important differences in therapeutic sensitivity of leukemias/lymphomas versus solid tumors can be explained by key biological differences that define the treatment-resistant solid tumor phenotype. A review of these clinical outcome data in the context of recent developments in our understanding of drug resistance mechanisms characteristic of solid tumors suggests the need for a new paradigm for the treatment of chemotherapy-resistant cancers. In contrast to reductionist approaches, the systemic approach targets both microenvironmental and systemic factors that drive and sustain tumor progression. These systemic factors include dysregulated inflammatory and oxidation pathways shown to be directly implicated in the development and maintenance of the cancer phenotype. The paradigm stresses the importance of a combined preventive/therapeutic approach involving adjuvant chemotherapies that incorporate anti-inflammatory and anti-oxidant therapeutics.

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 153 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 148 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 19%
Student > Master 20 13%
Student > Bachelor 18 12%
Researcher 17 11%
Other 9 6%
Other 24 16%
Unknown 36 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 23 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 22 14%
Chemistry 9 6%
Engineering 8 5%
Other 21 14%
Unknown 41 27%
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 24 October 2016.
All research outputs
#17,690,153
of 22,712,476 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#6,959
of 15,939 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#210,183
of 280,743 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#76
of 167 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,712,476 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,939 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 280,743 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 167 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.