↓ Skip to main content

Cancer Treatment with Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 Agents: Is PD-L1 Expression a Biomarker for Patient Selection?

Overview of attention for article published in Drugs, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users
patent
2 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
129 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
170 Mendeley
Title
Cancer Treatment with Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 Agents: Is PD-L1 Expression a Biomarker for Patient Selection?
Published in
Drugs, May 2016
DOI 10.1007/s40265-016-0588-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lucia Festino, Gerardo Botti, Paul Lorigan, Giuseppe V. Masucci, Jason D. Hipp, Christine E. Horak, Ignacio Melero, Paolo A. Ascierto

Abstract

Strategies to help improve the efficacy of the immune system against cancer represent an important innovation, with recent attention having focused on anti-programmed death (PD)-1/PD-ligand 1 (L1) monoclonal antibodies. Clinical trials have shown objective clinical activity of these agents (e.g., nivolumab, pembrolizumab) in several malignancies, including melanoma, non-small-cell lung cancer, bladder cancer, squamous head and neck cancer, renal cell cancer, ovarian cancer, microsatellite-unstable colorectal cancer, and Hodgkin's lymphoma. Expression of PD-L1 in the tumor microenvironment appears to be crucial for therapeutic activity, and initial trials suggested positive PD-L1 tumor expression was associated with higher response rates. However, subsequent observations have questioned the prospect of using PD-L1 expression as a biomarker for selecting patients for therapy, especially since many patients considered PD-L1-negative experience a benefit from treatment. Importantly, there is not yet a definitive test for determination of PD-L1 and a cut-off reference for PD-L1-positive status has not been established. Immunohistochemistry with different antibodies and different thresholds has been used to define PD-L1 positivity (1-50 %), with no clear superiority of one threshold over another for identifying which patients respond. Moreover, the type of cells on which PD-L1 expression is most relevant is not yet clear, with immune infiltrate cells and tumor cells both being used. In conclusion, while PD-L1 expression is often a predictive factor for treatment response, it must be complemented by other biomarkers or histopathologic features, such as the composition and amount of inflammatory cells in the tumor microenvironment and their functional status. Multi-parameter quantitative or semi-quantitative algorithms may become useful and reliable tools to guide patient selection.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 170 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 169 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 31 18%
Student > Bachelor 22 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 12%
Student > Postgraduate 18 11%
Student > Master 15 9%
Other 26 15%
Unknown 37 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 55 32%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 32 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 3%
Other 7 4%
Unknown 43 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 31 January 2023.
All research outputs
#3,358,303
of 25,846,867 outputs
Outputs from Drugs
#462
of 3,487 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,337
of 353,124 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drugs
#6
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,846,867 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,487 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. 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 353,124 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.