↓ Skip to main content

Mechanisms of immune evasion in breast cancer

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
189 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
300 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
Mechanisms of immune evasion in breast cancer
Published in
BMC Cancer, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12885-018-4441-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joshua P. Bates, Roshanak Derakhshandeh, Laundette Jones, Tonya J. Webb

Abstract

Tumors develop multiple mechanisms of immune evasion as they progress, with some cancer types being inherently better at 'hiding' than others. With an increased understanding of tumor immune surveillance, immunotherapy has emerged as a promising treatment strategy for breast cancer, despite historically being thought of as an immunologically silent neoplasm. Some types of cancer, such as melanoma, bladder, and renal cell carcinoma, have demonstrated a durable response to immunotherapeutic intervention, however, breast neoplasms have not shown the same efficacy. The causes of breast cancer's immune silence derive from mechanisms that diminish immune recognition and others that promote strong immunosuppression. It is the mechanisms of immune evasion in breast cancers that are poorly defined. Thus, further characterization is critical for the development of better therapies. This brief review will seek to provide insight into the possible causes of weak immunogenicity and immune suppression mediated by breast cancers and highlight current immunotherapies being used to restore immune responses to breast cancer.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 300 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 300 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 50 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 39 13%
Researcher 27 9%
Student > Master 27 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 18 6%
Other 30 10%
Unknown 109 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 70 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 38 13%
Immunology and Microbiology 21 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 11 4%
Other 20 7%
Unknown 120 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 18 May 2018.
All research outputs
#6,822,370
of 23,051,185 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#1,769
of 8,369 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#116,422
of 325,557 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#61
of 211 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,051,185 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,369 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 325,557 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 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 211 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 71% of its contemporaries.