↓ Skip to main content

Immune-checkpoint inhibitor-induced diarrhea and colitis in patients with advanced malignancies: retrospective review at MD Anderson

Overview of attention for article published in Journal for Immunotherapy of Cancer, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
twitter
5 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
185 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
126 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
Immune-checkpoint inhibitor-induced diarrhea and colitis in patients with advanced malignancies: retrospective review at MD Anderson
Published in
Journal for Immunotherapy of Cancer, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40425-018-0346-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yinghong Wang, Hamzah Abu-Sbeih, Emily Mao, Noman Ali, Faisal Shaukat Ali, Wei Qiao, Phillip Lum, Gottumukkala Raju, Gladis Shuttlesworth, John Stroehlein, Adi Diab

Abstract

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICPIs) are gaining increasing popularity as an efficacious treatment for advanced malignancies. ICPI treatment can be complicated by diarrhea and colitis. Systemic steroids are the first line treatment. Infliximab is reserved for severe refractory cases. We aimed to assess the impact of ICPI-induced diarrhea and colitis and their immunosuppressive treatment on patients' outcomes. This retrospective analysis was conducted in 327 cancer patients who received ICPIs between 2011 and 2017. Patients with ICPI-induced toxicities in other organs were excluded. We collected data about patient demographics, clinical variables, and overall survival. We used descriptive analysis to compare different groups based on the occurrence and the treatment of diarrhea and colitis. Kaplan-Meier and log-rank test were used to estimate and compare overall survival durations between groups. Diarrhea was recorded in 117 (36%) patients; 79 (24%) of them required immunosuppressive treatment of either systemic corticosteroid without infliximab (n = 44) or with infliximab (n = 35). Caucasian ethnicity, melanoma, stage 3 cancer, and ipilimumab were predictors of colitis that requires immunosuppression. Patients who required immunosuppressants had better overall survival than those who did not require treatment for colitis or diarrhea (P < 0.001). Immunosuppression for diarrhea or colitis did not affect the overall survival significantly (P = 0.232), nor did the choice of treatment (corticosteroids with vs. without infliximab; P = 0.768). Diarrhea was an independent predictor of a favorable overall survival (P < 0.001), irrespective of treatment need (P = 0.003). We confirmed the same results in a subgroup analysis for patients with stage IV malignancies only. Patients who received long duration of steroid treatment (> 30 days) had numerically higher infection rate than those who received steroid for shorter duration (40.4 vs. 25.8%, P = 0.160). Likewise, long duration of steroid without infliximab was associated with increased risk of infection compared to short duration of steroid with infliximab (42.9% vs. 14.3%, P = 0.089). Patients with ICPI-induced diarrhea or colitis have improved survival outcomes. Diarrhea is an independent predictor of an improved survival regardless of treatment requirement. Immunosuppressive treatment for diarrhea did not significantly affect overall survival, however, infection rates were numerically higher among patients who received steroids for a long duration. Therefore, early non-steroid immunosuppressive therapy may ensure a more favorable overall outcome.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 126 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 126 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 12%
Other 14 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 10%
Student > Master 11 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 7%
Other 26 21%
Unknown 38 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 59 47%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 2%
Other 9 7%
Unknown 43 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. 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 04 January 2021.
All research outputs
#1,272,085
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Journal for Immunotherapy of Cancer
#305
of 3,422 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,319
of 339,382 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal for Immunotherapy of Cancer
#10
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,422 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 339,382 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 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.