↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Rationale for targeting VEGF, FGF, and PDGF for the treatment of NSCLC

Overview of attention for article published in OncoTargets and therapy, May 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
62 Mendeley
Title
Rationale for targeting VEGF, FGF, and PDGF for the treatment of NSCLC
Published in
OncoTargets and therapy, May 2011
DOI 10.2147/ott.s18155
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marc S Ballas, Abraham Chachoua

Abstract

Lung cancer remains a leading cause of death globally, with the most frequent type, nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC), having a 5-year survival rate of less than 20%. While platinum-based doublet chemotherapy is currently first-line therapy for advanced disease, it is associated with only modest clinical benefits at the cost of significant toxicities. In an effort to overcome these limitations, recent research has focused on targeted therapies, with recently approved agents targeting the epidermal growth factor receptor and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) signaling pathways. However, these agents (gefitinib, erlotinib, and bevacizumab) provide antitumor activity for only a small proportion of patients, and patients whose tumors respond inevitably develop resistance to treatment. As angiogenesis is a crucial step in tumor growth and metastasis, antiangiogenic treatments might be expected to have antitumor activity. Important targets for the development of novel antiangiogenic therapies include VEGF, fibroblast growth factor, platelet-derived growth factor, and their receptors. It is hypothesized that targeting multiple angiogenic pathways may not only improve antitumor activity but also reduce the risk of resistance. Several novel agents, such as BIBF 1120, sorafenib, sunitinib, and cediranib have shown promising preliminary activity and tolerability in Phase II studies, and results of ongoing Phase III randomized studies will be necessary to establish the potential place of these new therapies in the management of individual patients with NSCLC.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 2%
Unknown 61 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 13%
Other 7 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Student > Master 4 6%
Other 13 21%
Unknown 12 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 34%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 14 23%
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 21 March 2014.
All research outputs
#7,363,939
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from OncoTargets and therapy
#377
of 3,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,413
of 121,624 outputs
Outputs of similar age from OncoTargets and therapy
#2
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th 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 86% 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 121,624 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 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.