| Title |
Emerging therapies for acute myeloid leukemia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Hematology & Oncology, April 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13045-017-0463-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Caner Saygin, Hetty E. Carraway |
| Abstract |
Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is characterized by clinical and biological heterogeneity. Despite the advances in our understanding of its pathobiology, the chemotherapy-directed management has remained largely unchanged in the past 40 years. However, various novel agents have demonstrated clinical activity, either as single agents (e.g., isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) inhibitors, vadastuximab) or in combination with standard induction/consolidation at diagnosis and with salvage regimens at relapse. The classes of agents described in this review include novel cytotoxic chemotherapies (CPX-351 and vosaroxin), epigenetic modifiers (guadecitabine, IDH inhibitors, histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitors, bromodomain and extraterminal (BET) inhibitors), FMS-like tyrosine kinase receptor 3 (FLT3) inhibitors, and antibody-drug conjugates (vadastuximab), as well as cell cycle inhibitors (volasertib), B-cell lymphoma 2 (BCL-2) inhibitors, and aminopeptidase inhibitors. These agents are actively undergoing clinical investigation alone or in combination with available chemotherapy. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 50% |
| France | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 2 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 83% |
| Scientists | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 169 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 169 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 24 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 22 | 13% |
| Other | 20 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 18 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 8% |
| Other | 35 | 21% |
| Unknown | 36 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 45 | 27% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 42 | 25% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 13 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 13 | 8% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 17 | 10% |
| Unknown | 35 | 21% |
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 23 November 2022.
All research outputs
#3,421,979
of 25,928,676 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Hematology & Oncology
#295
of 1,319 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,331
of 327,591 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Hematology & Oncology
#10
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,928,676 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 1,319 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 327,591 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 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.