↓ Skip to main content

Ibrutinib continues to influence the therapeutic landscape of chronic lymphocytic leukemia: new data presented at ASCO 2017

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 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
Ibrutinib continues to influence the therapeutic landscape of chronic lymphocytic leukemia: new data presented at ASCO 2017
Published in
BMC Medicine, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12916-017-0920-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stefano Molica

Abstract

According to data presented at the 2017 American Society of Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting, with more than 4 years of follow-up, ibrutinib continues to provide clinical utility in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). However, treatment of CLL patients with high-risk cytogenetics features remains a challenge and the outcome of these hard-to-treat patients is dismal. At the 2017 ASCO Meeting, results of the GENUINE phase III trial showed that, by adding ublituximab, a glycoengineered, anti-CD20 type 1 monoclonal antibody, to ibrutinib, the overall response rate (ORR), complete response rate (CRR), and minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity may be improved in high-risk CLL patients. A further way to improve the results obtained with Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors is the parallel use of ibrutinib with chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy. Through this investigational approach, the rate of MRD negativity was shown to be higher, implying potential eradication of CLL. These novel data indicate that ibrutinib continues to have a positive effect in CLL.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 6 22%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 11%
Researcher 3 11%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Other 5 19%
Unknown 5 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 33%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 7%
Unspecified 1 4%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 6 22%
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 11 September 2017.
All research outputs
#18,810,584
of 23,312,088 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#3,270
of 3,508 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#222,072
of 288,409 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#45
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,312,088 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,508 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.7. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% 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 288,409 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 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.