The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
| Title |
New developments in the management of non-small-cell lung cancer, focus on rociletinib: what went wrong?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
OncoTargets and therapy, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ott.s97644 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nele Van Der Steen, Chiara Caparello, Christian Rolfo, Patrick Pauwels, Godefridus J Peters, Elisa Giovannetti |
| Abstract |
Recently, the development of the third-generation epidermal growth factor receptor-small molecule inhibitor (EGFR-TKI) rociletinib had failed. In this review, the wide-ranging aspects of the evolution of EGFR-TKIs were collected, with a special focus on rociletinib. The influence of different oncogenic mutations on EGFR activity was also discussed. Resistance to the first (erlotinib, gefitinib)- and second (afatinib)-generation EGFR-TKIs provided the rationale behind the development of the third-generation inhibitors (rociletinib, osimertinib). On the basis of these data, a comparison of their efficacy on the different mutated EGFRs and the respective resistance mechanisms is further reported. Moreover, the evolution and results of the clinical trials of rociletinib (TIGER trials) are compared with the trials on osimertinib, another third-generation EGFR-TKI that now has been granted US Food and Drug Administration approval. The reasons behind the arrest in the further development of rociletinib are put in the perspective of future drug development. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 51 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 16% |
| Researcher | 8 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 14% |
| Unknown | 15 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 24% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 10% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 10% |
| Unknown | 20 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 December 2016.
All research outputs
#7,284,188
of 25,604,262 outputs
Outputs from OncoTargets and therapy
#368
of 3,012 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#103,445
of 333,214 outputs
Outputs of similar age from OncoTargets and therapy
#9
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,604,262 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,012 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 333,214 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.