↓ Skip to main content

The need for a network to establish and validate predictive biomarkers in cancer immunotherapy

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Translational Medicine, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 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
The need for a network to establish and validate predictive biomarkers in cancer immunotherapy
Published in
Journal of Translational Medicine, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12967-017-1325-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Giuseppe V. Masucci, Alessandra Cesano, Alexander Eggermont, Bernard A. Fox, Ena Wang, Francesco M. Marincola, Gennaro Ciliberto, Kevin Dobbin, Igor Puzanov, Janis Taube, Jennifer Wargo, Lisa H. Butterfield, Lisa Villabona, Magdalena Thurin, Michael A. Postow, Paul M. Sondel, Sandra Demaria, Sanjiv Agarwala, Paolo A. Ascierto

Abstract

Immunotherapies have emerged as one of the most promising approaches to treat patients with cancer. Recently, the entire medical oncology field has been revolutionized by the introduction of immune checkpoints inhibitors. Despite success in a variety of malignancies, responses typically only occur in a small percentage of patients for any given histology or treatment regimen. There are also concerns that immunotherapies are associated with immune-related toxicity as well as high costs. As such, identifying biomarkers to determine which patients are likely to derive clinical benefit from which immunotherapy and/or be susceptible to adverse side effects is a compelling clinical and social need. In addition, with several new immunotherapy agents in different phases of development, and approved therapeutics being tested in combination with a variety of different standard of care treatments, there is a requirement to stratify patients and select the most appropriate population in which to assess clinical efficacy. The opportunity to design parallel biomarkers studies that are integrated within key randomized clinical trials could be the ideal solution. Sample collection (fresh and/or archival tissue, PBMC, serum, plasma, stool, etc.) at specific points of treatment is important for evaluating possible biomarkers and studying the mechanisms of responsiveness, resistance, toxicity and relapse. This white paper proposes the creation of a network to facilitate the sharing and coordinating of samples from clinical trials to enable more in-depth analyses of correlative biomarkers than is currently possible and to assess the feasibilities, logistics, and collated interests. We propose a high standard of sample collection and storage as well as exchange of samples and knowledge through collaboration, and envisage how this could move forward using banked samples from completed studies together with prospective planning for ongoing and future clinical trials.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 61 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 21%
Student > Master 8 13%
Other 6 10%
Professor 5 8%
Student > Bachelor 3 5%
Other 11 18%
Unknown 15 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 23%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 10%
Engineering 3 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 5%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 17 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 November 2017.
All research outputs
#13,521,732
of 23,923,788 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#1,553
of 4,232 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#157,837
of 332,181 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#16
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,923,788 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,232 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 332,181 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.