↓ Skip to main content

Pembrolizumab for metastatic melanoma in a renal allograft recipient with subsequent graft rejection and treatment response failure: a case report

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Case Reports, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 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
Pembrolizumab for metastatic melanoma in a renal allograft recipient with subsequent graft rejection and treatment response failure: a case report
Published in
Journal of Medical Case Reports, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13256-017-1229-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vineet Kwatra, Narayan V. Karanth, Kelum Priyadarshana, Michail Charakidis

Abstract

Transplant patients were excluded from the pivotal phase III trials of checkpoint inhibitors in metastatic melanoma. The efficacy and toxicity profiles of checkpoint inhibitors in this cohort of patients are not well described. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first case report of a renal transplant patient with stage IV melanoma treated with a programmed cell death protein 1 checkpoint inhibitor that led to both treatment failure and renal graft rejection. We present a case of a 58-year-old white man with a long-standing cadaveric renal transplant who was diagnosed with a B-Raf Proto-Oncogene, Serine/Threonine Kinase wild-type metastatic melanoma. He was treated with first-line pembrolizumab but experienced subsequent graft failure and rapid disease progression. This case highlights the risks associated with the administration of checkpoint inhibitors in patients with a renal transplant and on immunosuppressive therapy. More specifically, it adds to the literature indicating that, compared with the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 inhibitor ipilimumab, anti-programmed cell death protein 1 agents are more likely to lead to renal graft failure. Additionally, these novel immunotherapeutics may be ineffective in transplant patients; therefore, clinicians should be very aware of those risks and carefully consider selection of agents and full disclosure of the risks to their patients.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 19%
Student > Master 7 13%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 12 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 16 30%
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 29 March 2017.
All research outputs
#19,700,902
of 24,226,848 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Case Reports
#2,354
of 4,247 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#241,267
of 313,335 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Case Reports
#48
of 96 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,226,848 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,247 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 313,335 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 96 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.