↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Neoadjuvant treatments in triple-negative breast cancer patients: where we are now and where we are going

Overview of attention for article published in Cancer Management and Research, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (58th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 Mendeley
Title
Neoadjuvant treatments in triple-negative breast cancer patients: where we are now and where we are going
Published in
Cancer Management and Research, January 2018
DOI 10.2147/cmar.s146658
Pubmed ID
Authors

Claudia Omarini, Giorgia Guaitoli, Stefania Pipitone, Luca Moscetti, Laura Cortesi, Stefano Cascinu, Federico Piacentini

Abstract

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) remains the poorest-prognosis breast cancer (BC) subtype. Gene expression profiling has identified at least six different triple-negative subtypes with different biology and sensitivity to therapies. The heterogeneous nature of TN tumors may justify the difficulty in treating this BC subtype. Several targeted agents have been investigated in clinical trials without demonstrating a clear survival benefit. Therefore, systemic chemotherapy remains the cornerstone of current clinical practice. Improving the knowledge of tumor biology is mandatory for patient management. In stages II and III, neoadjuvant systemic treatment is an effective option of care. The achievement of a pathological complete response represents an optimal surrogate for survival outcome as well as a test for tumor drug sensitivity. In this review, we provide a brief description of the main predictive biomarkers for tumor response to systemic treatment. Moreover, we review the treatment strategies investigated for TNBCs in neoadjuvant settings focusing on experimental drugs such as immunotherapy and poly [ADP-ribose] polymerase inhibitors that hold promise in the treatment of this aggressive disease. Therefore, the management of TNBC represents an urgent, current, unmet need in daily clinical practice. A key recommendation is to design biology-driven clinical trials wherein TNBC patients may be treated on the basis of tumor molecular profile.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 50 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 10 20%
Student > Master 7 14%
Researcher 6 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 12%
Other 5 10%
Other 16 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 34%
Unspecified 11 22%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 18%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 8%
Other 5 10%

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 17 January 2018.
All research outputs
#6,580,097
of 12,379,409 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Management and Research
#129
of 470 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#162,220
of 397,595 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Management and Research
#15
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,379,409 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 470 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 71% 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 397,595 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 58% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 66 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 74% of its contemporaries.