↓ Skip to main content

Interstitial nephritis in melanoma patients secondary to PD-1 checkpoint inhibitor

Overview of attention for article published in Journal for Immunotherapy of Cancer, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 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
Interstitial nephritis in melanoma patients secondary to PD-1 checkpoint inhibitor
Published in
Journal for Immunotherapy of Cancer, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40425-016-0205-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julia Escandon, Stephanie Peacock, Asaad Trabolsi, David B. Thomas, Ayman Layka, Jose Lutzky

Abstract

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have become the first line therapy in melanoma treatment and their use is extending to other malignancies. However, we are still learning about immune side effects produced by these drugs and their severity especially in patients with history of inflammatory diseases. We present two cases of metastatic melanoma treated with nivolumab and pembrolizumab (anti PD-1). Both patients developed acute interstitial nephritis during immune checkpoint therapy. We emphasize the causal association between immune checkpoint inhibitors and the nephritis. The timing of drug administration and appearance of nephritis is suggestive of a causal relation between the checkpoint inhibitor therapy and this adverse event. Although uncommon, some side effects from checkpoint inhibitors can be severe and may need to be addressed with immunosuppression. Given the increasing frequency of immunotherapy use, awareness should be raised in regards to immune side effects and their appropriate management.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 57 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 14%
Researcher 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Professor 4 7%
Other 12 21%
Unknown 16 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 42%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 21 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 April 2018.
All research outputs
#3,724,211
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Journal for Immunotherapy of Cancer
#1,023
of 3,466 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,900
of 422,507 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal for Immunotherapy of Cancer
#13
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,466 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 422,507 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.