| Title |
New developments in the treatment of advanced squamous cell lung cancer: focus on afatinib
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
OncoTargets and therapy, May 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ott.s104177 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Vera Hirsh |
| Abstract |
Until recently, few treatment options existed for the treatment of squamous cell carcinoma (SqCC) of the lung, especially in the second-line setting following platinum-based chemotherapy. Accordingly, outcomes in this subtype of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were generally poor. In this context, the recent availability of the checkpoint inhibitors nivolumab and pembrolizumab, the anti-VEGFR2 antibody ramucirumab (combined with docetaxel), and the ErbB-family blocker afatinib for the treatment of relapsed/refractory SqCC of the lung represent major advances. However, the rapid expansion of the treatment armamentarium invites many questions regarding optimal treatment choice and sequence in individual patients. This review focuses on the biologic rationale and clinical evidence to support the use of afatinib in this treatment setting, highlighting the prominent role of the ErbB-signaling cascade in SqCC tumors. The seminal Phase III LUX-Lung 8 study, on which the approval of afatinib is based, is discussed and contextualized with the emergence of immunotherapies. Finally, criteria are explored that might drive physicians' treatment decisions when considering the use of afatinib based on individual patient characteristics. Other ongoing developments in the treatment of SqCC of the lung that will lead to further options and welcome improvements in the management of this difficult-to-treat disease are summarized. |
X Demographics
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 49 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 10% |
| Unspecified | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 7 | 14% |
| Unknown | 20 | 41% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 33% |
| Unspecified | 4 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 21 | 43% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 27 June 2017.
All research outputs
#16,725,651
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from OncoTargets and therapy
#984
of 3,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#196,441
of 324,557 outputs
Outputs of similar age from OncoTargets and therapy
#27
of 77 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 324,557 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 77 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 55% of its contemporaries.