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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
A phase I clinical study of immunotherapy for advanced colorectal cancers using carcinoembryonic antigen-pulsed dendritic cells mixed with tetanus toxoid and subsequent IL-2 treatment
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Biomedical Science, August 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12929-016-0279-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ko-Jiunn Liu, Tsu-Yi Chao, Jang-Yang Chang, Ann-Lii Cheng, Hui-Ju Ch’ang, Woei-Yau Kao, Yu-Chen Wu, Wei-Lan Yu, Tsai-Rong Chung, Jacqueline Whang-Peng |
| Abstract |
To better evaluate and improve the efficacy of dendritic cell (DC)-based cancer immunotherapy, we conducted a clinical study of patients with advanced colorectal cancer using carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA)-pulsed DCs mixed with tetanus toxoid and subsequent interleukin-2 treatment. The tetanus toxoid in the vaccine preparation serves as an adjuvant and provides a non-tumor specific immune response to enhance vaccine efficacy. The aims of this study were to (1) evaluate the toxicity of this treatment, (2) observe the clinical responses of vaccinated patients, and (3) investigate the immune responses of patients against CEA before and after treatment. Twelve patients were recruited and treated in this phase I clinical study. These patients all had metastatic colorectal cancer and failed standard chemotherapy. We first subcutaneously immunized patients with metastatic colorectal cancer with 1 × 10(6) CEA-pulsed DCs mixed with tetanus toxoid as an adjuvant. Patients received 3 successive injections with 1 × 10(6) CEA-pulsed DCs alone. Low-dose interleukin-2 was administered subcutaneously following the final DC vaccination to boost the growth of T cells. Patients were evaluated for adverse event and clinical status. Blood samples collected before, during, and after treatment were analyzed for T cell proliferation responses against CEA. No severe treatment-related side effects or toxicity was observed in patients who received the regular 4 DC vaccine injections. Two patients had stable disease and 10 patients showed disease progression. A statistically significant increase in proliferation against CEA by T cells collected after vaccination was observed in 2 of 9 patients. The results of this study indicate that it is feasible and safe to treat colorectal cancer patients using this protocol. An increase in the anti-CEA immune response and a clinical benefit was observed in a small fraction of patients. This treatment protocol should be further evaluated in additional colorectal cancer patients with modifications to enhance T cell responses. ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier NCT00154713 ), September 8, 2005. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 60 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 18% |
| Researcher | 10 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 9 | 15% |
| Unknown | 13 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 25% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 9 | 15% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 10% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 6 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 10% |
| Unknown | 15 | 25% |
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 27 August 2016.
All research outputs
#17,286,379
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Biomedical Science
#753
of 1,101 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#230,869
of 352,663 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Biomedical Science
#9
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,101 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 352,663 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.