↓ Skip to main content

Future perspectives in melanoma research “Melanoma Bridge”, Napoli, November 30th–3rd December 2016

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 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
Future perspectives in melanoma research “Melanoma Bridge”, Napoli, November 30th–3rd December 2016
Published in
Journal of Translational Medicine, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12967-017-1341-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paolo A. Ascierto, Sanjiv S. Agarwala, Gennaro Ciliberto, Sandra Demaria, Reinhard Dummer, Connie P. M. Duong, Soldano Ferrone, Silvia C. Formenti, Claus Garbe, Ruth Halaban, Samir Khleif, Jason J. Luke, Lluis M. Mir, Willem W. Overwijk, Michael Postow, Igor Puzanov, Paul Sondel, Janis M. Taube, Per Thor Straten, David F. Stroncek, Jennifer A. Wargo, Hassane Zarour, Magdalena Thurin

Abstract

Major advances have been made in the treatment of cancer with targeted therapy and immunotherapy; several FDA-approved agents with associated improvement of 1-year survival rates became available for stage IV melanoma patients. Before 2010, the 1-year survival were quite low, at 30%; in 2011, the rise to nearly 50% in the setting of treatment with Ipilimumab, and rise to 70% with BRAF inhibitor monotherapy in 2013 was observed. Even more impressive are 1-year survival rates considering combination strategies with both targeted therapy and immunotherapy, now exceeding 80%. Can we improve response rates even further, and bring these therapies to more patients? In fact, despite these advances, responses are heterogeneous and are not always durable. There is a critical need to better understand who will benefit from therapy, as well as proper timing, sequence and combination of different therapeutic agents. How can we better understand responses to therapy and optimize treatment regimens? The key to better understanding therapy and to optimizing responses is with insights gained from responses to targeted therapy and immunotherapy through translational research in human samples. Combination therapies including chemotherapy, radiotherapy, targeted therapy, electrochemotherapy with immunotherapy agents such as Immune Checkpoint Blockers are under investigation but there is much room for improvement. Adoptive T cell therapy including tumor infiltrating lymphocytes and chimeric antigen receptor modified T cells therapy is also efficacious in metastatic melanoma and outcome enhancement seem likely by improved homing capacity of chemokine receptor transduced T cells. Tumor infiltrating lymphocytes therapy is also efficacious in metastatic melanoma and outcome enhancement seem likely by improved homing capacity of chemokine receptor transduced T cells. Understanding the mechanisms behind the development of acquired resistance and tests for biomarkers for treatment decisions are also under study and will offer new opportunities for more efficient combination therapies. Knowledge of immunologic features of the tumor microenvironment associated with response and resistance will improve the identification of patients who will derive the most benefit from monotherapy and might reveal additional immunologic determinants that could be targeted in combination with checkpoint blockade. The future of advanced melanoma needs to involve education and trials, biobanks with a focus on primary tumors, bioinformatics and empowerment of patients and clinicians.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 65 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 12 18%
Researcher 5 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 6%
Lecturer 4 6%
Professor 4 6%
Other 12 18%
Unknown 24 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 25%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 8%
Computer Science 3 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 5%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 24 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 17 November 2017.
All research outputs
#14,084,634
of 23,008,860 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#1,714
of 4,023 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#157,624
of 294,546 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#25
of 70 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,008,860 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,023 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 294,546 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 70 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 61% of its contemporaries.