↓ Skip to main content

Patterns in target-directed breast cancer research

Overview of attention for article published in SpringerPlus, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
Title
Patterns in target-directed breast cancer research
Published in
SpringerPlus, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40064-016-1736-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sofia Torres, Christine Simmons, Jean-François Boileau, Deanna McLeod, Ilidio Martins, Maureen Trudeau

Abstract

We undertake an analysis of ongoing BC targeted therapy trials registered to CT.gov to describe patterns of ongoing clinical research, highlight gaps in current research programs and identify ways of optimizing ongoing initiatives. A search of clinicaltrials.gov was conducted on September 4, 2013 to identify ongoing randomized phase II and III trials of targeted therapies in BC. A total of 280 trials were analyzed, the majority conducted in either human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive (n = 79, 28.2 %) or hormone receptor (HR)-positive (n = 104, 37.1 %) populations. Less than half of all trials were conducted in populations selected to match the agent under investigation (n = 126, 45 %). HER2-directed therapy is the single most investigated class of targeted agents (n = 73, 26.1 %), but trials investigating anti-angiogenic agents are also common (n = 49, 17.5 %). The most common new classes of agents under investigation in HR-positive and triple negative (TN)/BRCA-positive disease, are non-receptor protein kinase-inhibitors (n = 12; 11.5 %) and poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (n = 6; 30 %), respectively. The majority of regimens combine new targeted agents with either chemotherapy (n = 164, 58.6 %) or endocrine therapy (n = 113, 40.4 %); a total of 8 trials (2.8 %) investigated peptide-drug conjugates. The most frequently utilized end-points were pathological complete response in the neo-adjuvant setting (n = 36, 52.9 %) and time-to-event end-points in the adjuvant and advanced settings (77.3 and 72.6 %, respectively). Our findings suggest a need for more target-matched agent development, maintenance of a value-based focus in research and a need for the clinical development of agents to treat TN/BRCA-positive and HR-positive BC.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 23%
Student > Master 4 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 15%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 8%
Other 2 8%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 4 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 38%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 8%
Psychology 1 4%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 4 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 21 February 2016.
All research outputs
#14,186,589
of 22,849,304 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#762
of 1,849 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#206,949
of 397,376 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#65
of 221 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,849,304 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,849 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 397,376 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 221 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 70% of its contemporaries.