↓ Skip to main content

Biomarkers of immunotherapy in urothelial and renal cell carcinoma: PD-L1, tumor mutational burden, and beyond

Overview of attention for article published in Journal for Immunotherapy of Cancer, January 2018
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 (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
52 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
97 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
111 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
Biomarkers of immunotherapy in urothelial and renal cell carcinoma: PD-L1, tumor mutational burden, and beyond
Published in
Journal for Immunotherapy of Cancer, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40425-018-0314-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jason Zhu, Andrew J. Armstrong, Terence W. Friedlander, Won Kim, Sumanta K. Pal, Daniel J. George, Tian Zhang

Abstract

Immune checkpoint inhibitors targeting the PD-1 pathway have greatly changed clinical management of metastatic urothelial carcinoma and metastatic renal cell carcinoma. However, response rates are low, and biomarkers are needed to predict for treatment response. Immunohistochemical quantification of PD-L1 was developed as a promising biomarker in early clinical trials, but many shortcomings of the four different assays (different antibodies, disparate cellular populations, and different thresholds of positivity) have limited its clinical utility. Further limitations include the use of archival specimens to measure this dynamic biomarker. Indeed, until PD-L1 testing is standardized and can consistently predict treatment outcome, the currently available PD-L1 assays are not clinically useful in urothelial and renal cell carcinoma. Other more promising biomarkers include tumor mutational burden, profiles of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes, molecular subtypes, and PD-L2. Potentially, a composite biomarker may be best but will need prospective testing to validate such a biomarker.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 52 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 111 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 17%
Other 14 13%
Student > Master 11 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 9%
Student > Postgraduate 8 7%
Other 17 15%
Unknown 32 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 33%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 19 17%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Engineering 3 3%
Other 4 4%
Unknown 40 36%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. 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 12 February 2018.
All research outputs
#789,956
of 16,669,654 outputs
Outputs from Journal for Immunotherapy of Cancer
#131
of 1,597 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,217
of 371,387 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal for Immunotherapy of Cancer
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,669,654 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 1,597 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 371,387 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them