↓ Skip to main content

Targeted drug delivery for cancer therapy: the other side of antibodies

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Hematology & Oncology, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

patent
19 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
179 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
346 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
Targeted drug delivery for cancer therapy: the other side of antibodies
Published in
Journal of Hematology & Oncology, November 2012
DOI 10.1186/1756-8722-5-70
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael A Firer, Gary Gellerman

Abstract

Therapeutic monoclonal antibody (TMA) based therapies for cancer have advanced significantly over the past two decades both in their molecular sophistication and clinical efficacy. Initial development efforts focused mainly on humanizing the antibody protein to overcome problems of immunogenicity and on expanding of the target antigen repertoire. In parallel to naked TMAs, antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) have been developed for targeted delivery of potent anti-cancer drugs with the aim of bypassing the morbidity common to conventional chemotherapy. This paper first presents a review of TMAs and ADCs approved for clinical use by the FDA and those in development, focusing on hematological malignancies. Despite advances in these areas, both TMAs and ADCs still carry limitations and we highlight the more important ones including cancer cell specificity, conjugation chemistry, tumor penetration, product heterogeneity and manufacturing issues. In view of the recognized importance of targeted drug delivery strategies for cancer therapy, we discuss the advantages of alternative drug carriers and where these should be applied, focusing on peptide-drug conjugates (PDCs), particularly those discovered through combinatorial peptide libraries. By defining the advantages and disadvantages of naked TMAs, ADCs and PDCs it should be possible to develop a more rational approach to the application of targeted drug delivery strategies in different situations and ultimately, to a broader basket of more effective therapies for cancer patients.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 346 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 1%
Germany 2 <1%
Japan 2 <1%
Ecuador 2 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 330 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 86 25%
Student > Master 58 17%
Researcher 58 17%
Student > Bachelor 36 10%
Other 20 6%
Other 61 18%
Unknown 27 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 77 22%
Chemistry 60 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 48 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 37 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 30 9%
Other 57 16%
Unknown 37 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 August 2021.
All research outputs
#3,920,427
of 19,394,767 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Hematology & Oncology
#218
of 997 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,449
of 225,892 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Hematology & Oncology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,394,767 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 997 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 225,892 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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