↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

The world of targeted therapies in kidney cancers: pitfalls, tips and tricks

Overview of attention for article published in OncoTargets and therapy, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 Mendeley
Title
The world of targeted therapies in kidney cancers: pitfalls, tips and tricks
Published in
OncoTargets and therapy, March 2017
DOI 10.2147/ott.s127919
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alexis Vallard, Jane-Chloé Trone, Julien Langrand-Escure, Sophie Espenel, Jean-Baptiste Guy, Chloé Rancoule, Yaoxiong Xia, Anis El Meddeb Hamrouni, Majed Ben Mrad, Nicolas Magné

Abstract

In the past few years, metastatic renal cell carcinoma prognosis was improved by the development of molecular targeted therapies (TTs). At the metastatic stage, the tolerance to treatment is a major concern, not only because of the challenge of the efficacy/toxicity ratio improvement but also because of the importance of an optimal adherence to oral treatments. The present case series relates the issues of dealing with uncommon and sometimes never described side effects of sunitinib and sorafenib. The first case report deals with grade 3 vomiting during hemodialysis with concurrent administration of sunitinib. The second case is an iterative gout attack induced by sunitinib. The third case presents a grade 3 scalp dysesthesia with sorafenib. The fourth case includes an astonishing efficacy of metronomic (ie, low doses during a long period of time) bevacizumab in monotherapy. Multidisciplinary management and systematic reporting of unexpected efficacies and toxicities are needed to better understand TTs real therapeutic index. Although TTs revolutionized metastatic renal cell cancer prognosis, they also brought about previously unknown side effects. Identification and management of these off-target effects may be tricky, and therefore, comedication must be wisely chosen. As the physiopathology of these side effects is still unclear, multidisciplinary management and systematic reporting of toxicities are essential.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 17%
Student > Master 4 17%
Researcher 2 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 4%
Librarian 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 10 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 4%
Unknown 11 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 22 April 2017.
All research outputs
#14,787,133
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from OncoTargets and therapy
#739
of 3,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#167,541
of 324,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age from OncoTargets and therapy
#35
of 91 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 well, scoring higher than 75% 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 324,443 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 91 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 61% of its contemporaries.