↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Immune checkpoint blockade: the role of PD-1-PD-L axis in lymphoid malignancies

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (62nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
patent
1 patent

Readers on

mendeley
85 Mendeley
Title
Immune checkpoint blockade: the role of PD-1-PD-L axis in lymphoid malignancies
Published in
OncoTargets and therapy, April 2017
DOI 10.2147/ott.s133385
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cristina Ilcus, Cristina Bagacean, Adrian Tempescul, Cristian Popescu, Andrada Parvu, Mihai Cenariu, Corina Bocsan, Mihnea Zdrenghea

Abstract

The co-inhibitory receptor programmed cell death (PD)-1, expressed by immune effector cells, is credited with a protective role for normal tissue during immune responses, by limiting the extent of effector activation. Its presently known ligands, programmed death ligands (PD-Ls) 1 and 2, are expressed by a variety of cells including cancer cells, suggesting a role for these molecules as an immune evasion mechanism. Blocking of the PD-1-PD-L signaling axis has recently been shown to be effective and was clinically approved in relapsed/refractory tumors such as malignant melanoma and lung cancer, but also classical Hodgkin's lymphoma. A plethora of trials exploring PD-1 blockade in cancer are ongoing. Here, we review the role of PD-1 signaling in lymphoid malignancies, and the latest results of trials investigating PD-1 or PD-L1 blocking agents in this group of diseases. Early phase studies proved very promising, leading to the clinical approval of a PD-1 blocking agent in Hodgkin's lymphoma, and Phase III clinical studies are either planned or ongoing in most lymphoid malignancies.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 85 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 13%
Researcher 9 11%
Student > Bachelor 9 11%
Other 7 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 15 18%
Unknown 29 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 25%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 13%
Immunology and Microbiology 7 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 5%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 33 39%
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 11 April 2019.
All research outputs
#7,962,193
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from OncoTargets and therapy
#431
of 3,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#118,364
of 323,961 outputs
Outputs of similar age from OncoTargets and therapy
#15
of 92 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
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 84% 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 323,961 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 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 92 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.