↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

New treatment options for ALK+ advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: critical appraisal of ceritinib

Overview of attention for article published in Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 Mendeley
Title
New treatment options for ALK+ advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: critical appraisal of ceritinib
Published in
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, May 2016
DOI 10.2147/tcrm.s87876
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sacha I Rothschild

Abstract

Rearrangements in ALK gene and EML4 gene were first described in 2007. This genomic aberration is found in about 2%-8% of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. Crizotinib was the first ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor licensed for the treatment of metastatic ALK-positive NSCLC based on a randomized Phase III trial. Despite the initial treatment response of crizotinib, disease progression inevitably develops after approximately 10 months of therapy. Different resistance mechanisms have recently been described. One relevant mechanism of resistance is the development of mutations in ALK. Novel ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors have been developed to overcome these mutations. Ceritinib is an oral second-generation ALK inhibitor showing clinical activity not only in crizotinib-resistant ALK-positive NSCLC but also in treatment-naïve ALK-positive disease. In this paper, preclinical and clinical data of ceritinib are reviewed, and its role in the clinical setting is put into perspective.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 25%
Student > Postgraduate 4 20%
Student > Master 2 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Student > Bachelor 1 5%
Other 4 20%
Unknown 3 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 40%
Chemistry 2 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Unspecified 1 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 7 35%
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 09 May 2016.
All research outputs
#7,430,186
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#377
of 1,308 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#97,970
of 312,290 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#13
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 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 1,308 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 312,290 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.