↓ Skip to main content

New drugs, new toxicities: severe side effects of modern targeted and immunotherapy of cancer and their management

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
42 X users
patent
3 patents
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
13 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
350 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
601 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
New drugs, new toxicities: severe side effects of modern targeted and immunotherapy of cancer and their management
Published in
Critical Care, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13054-017-1678-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Frank Kroschinsky, Friedrich Stölzel, Simone von Bonin, Gernot Beutel, Matthias Kochanek, Michael Kiehl, Peter Schellongowski, on behalf of the Intensive Care in Hematological and Oncological Patients (iCHOP) Collaborative Group

Abstract

Pharmacological and cellular treatment of cancer is changing dramatically with benefits for patient outcome and comfort, but also with new toxicity profiles. The majority of adverse events can be classified as mild or moderate, but severe and life-threatening complications requiring ICU admission also occur. This review will focus on pathophysiology, symptoms, and management of these events based on the available literature.While standard antineoplastic therapy is associated with immunosuppression and infections, some of the recent approaches induce overwhelming inflammation and autoimmunity. Cytokine-release syndrome (CRS) describes a complex of symptoms including fever, hypotension, and skin reactions as well as lab abnormalities. CRS may occur after the infusion of monoclonal or bispecific antibodies (MABs, BABs) targeting immune effectors and tumor cells and is a major concern in recipients of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) modified T lymphocytes as well. BAB and CAR T-cell treatment may also be compromised by central nervous system (CNS) toxicities such as encephalopathy, cerebellar alteration, disturbed consciousness, or seizures. While CRS is known to be induced by exceedingly high levels of inflammatory cytokines, the pathophysiology of CNS events is still unclear. Treatment with antibodies against inhibiting immune checkpoints can lead to immune-related adverse events (IRAEs); colitis, diarrhea, and endocrine disorders are often the cause for ICU admissions.Respiratory distress is the main reason for ICU treatment in cancer patients and is attributable to infectious agents in most cases. In addition, some of the new drugs are reported to cause non-infectious lung complications. While drug-induced interstitial pneumonitis was observed in a substantial number of patients treated with phosphoinositol-3-kinase inhibitors, IRAEs may also affect the lungs.Inhibitors of angiogenetic pathways have increased the antineoplastic portfolio. However, vessel formation is also essential for regeneration and tissue repair. Therefore, severe vascular side effects, including thromboembolic events, gastrointestinal bleeding or perforation, hypertension, and congestive heart failure, compromise antitumor efficacy.The limited knowledge of the pathophysiology and management of life-threatening complications relating to new cancer drugs presents a need to provide ICU staff, oncologists, and organ specialists with evidence-based algorithms.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 42 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 601 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 <1%
Unknown 598 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 73 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 70 12%
Student > Master 65 11%
Student > Bachelor 56 9%
Other 43 7%
Other 111 18%
Unknown 183 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 142 24%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 60 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 40 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 30 5%
Engineering 17 3%
Other 104 17%
Unknown 208 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 40. 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 01 December 2021.
All research outputs
#1,031,394
of 25,466,764 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#806
of 6,567 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,776
of 323,448 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#15
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,466,764 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,567 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 323,448 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 67 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.