↓ Skip to main content

Combinatorial immunotherapy of sorafenib and blockade of programmed death-ligand 1 induces effective natural killer cell responses against hepatocellular carcinoma

Overview of attention for article published in Tumor Biology, November 2014
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 (80th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
Title
Combinatorial immunotherapy of sorafenib and blockade of programmed death-ligand 1 induces effective natural killer cell responses against hepatocellular carcinoma
Published in
Tumor Biology, November 2014
DOI 10.1007/s13277-014-2722-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yun Wang, Hongxia Li, Qi Liang, Bin Liu, Xiaqi Mei, Yingji Ma

Abstract

Sorafenib, a multi-tyrosine kinase inhibitor, is a standard treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Herein, we report that the combinatorial therapy of sorafenib and anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) monoclonal antibody (mAb) can be implemented with good results for HCC. Cancer mouse models were used to evaluate therapeutic efficacy and examine the immunologic mechanisms of the sorafenib/anti-PD-L1 mAb therapy. The combined administration of sorafenib and anti-PD-L1 mAb into tumor-bearing mice generated potent immune responses resulting in the complete eradication or remarkable reduction of tumor growth. In some instances, the sorafenib/anti-PD-L1 mAb therapy induced long-lasting protection against tumor rechallenges. The results indicate that NK cells but not CD4T cells or CD8 cells mediated the therapeutic efficacy of this combinatorial therapy. The overall results suggest that immunotherapy consisting of the combination of sorafenib/anti-PD-L1 mAb could be a promising new approach for treating patients with HCC.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 5%
Unknown 18 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 32%
Researcher 5 26%
Student > Postgraduate 2 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 11%
Student > Bachelor 1 5%
Other 3 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 32%
Psychology 3 16%
Unspecified 3 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 11%
Other 3 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 11 October 2017.
All research outputs
#2,688,667
of 12,428,247 outputs
Outputs from Tumor Biology
#128
of 2,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,424
of 233,835 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Tumor Biology
#5
of 188 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,428,247 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,359 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 233,835 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 188 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.