↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Drugs for solid cancer the productivity crisis prompts a rethink

Overview of attention for article published in OncoTargets and therapy, June 2013
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 (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
googleplus
1 Google+ user
video
1 YouTube creator

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
Title
Drugs for solid cancer the productivity crisis prompts a rethink
Published in
OncoTargets and therapy, June 2013
DOI 10.2147/ott.s45177
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel Rösel, Jan Brábek, Pavel Veselý, Michael Fernandes

Abstract

Despite remarkable progress in cancer-drug discovery, the delivery of novel, safe, and sustainably effective products to the clinic has stalled. Using Src as a model, we examine key steps in drug development. The preclinical evidence on the relationship between Src and solid cancer is in sharp contrast with the modest anticancer effect noted in conventional clinical trials. Here, we consider Src inhibitors as an example of a promising drug class directed to invasion and metastasis and identify roadblocks in translation. We question the assumption that a drug-induced tumor shrinkage in preclinical and clinical studies predicts a successful outcome. Our analysis indicates that the key areas requiring attention are related, and include preclinical models (in vitro and mouse models), meaningful clinical trial end points, and an appreciation of the role of metastasis in morbidity and mortality. Current regulations do not reflect the natural history of the disease, and may be unrelated to the key complications: local invasion, metastasis, and the development of resistance. Alignment of preclinical and clinical studies and regulations based on mechanistic trial end points and platforms may help in overcoming these roadblocks. Viewed kaleidoscopically, most elements necessary and sufficient for a novel translational paradigm are in place.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 21%
Professor 3 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Other 2 7%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 4 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 38%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 21%
Engineering 3 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Sports and Recreations 1 3%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 4 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 23 September 2013.
All research outputs
#4,261,992
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from OncoTargets and therapy
#167
of 3,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,864
of 206,480 outputs
Outputs of similar age from OncoTargets and therapy
#8
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,016 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 206,480 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.