World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Medicine

D-Index
116
Citations
86714
World Ranking
4252
National Ranking
415

Thomas Powles publication distribution in Medicine in 2026

The chart shows the distribution of publications by all Research.com ranked scientists in the field of Medicine in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Thomas Powles sits on this spectrum.

101–120 publications: 5 scientists 121–140 publications: 26 scientists 141–160 publications: 73 scientists 161–180 publications: 155 scientists 181–200 publications: 230 scientists 201–220 publications: 363 scientists 221–240 publications: 487 scientists 241–260 publications: 545 scientists 261–280 publications: 722 scientists 281–300 publications: 768 scientists 301–320 publications: 834 scientists 321–340 publications: 895 scientists 341–360 publications: 922 scientists 361–380 publications: 838 scientists 381–400 publications: 861 scientists 401–420 publications: 918 scientists 421–440 publications: 806 scientists 441–460 publications: 771 scientists 461–480 publications: 751 scientists 481–500 publications: 713 scientists 501–520 publications: 617 scientists 521–540 publications: 611 scientists 541–560 publications: 537 scientists 561–580 publications: 504 scientists 581–600 publications: 509 scientists 601–620 publications: 396 scientists 621–640 publications: 386 scientists 641–660 publications: 371 scientists 661–680 publications: 340 scientists 681–700 publications: 336 scientists 701–720 publications: 307 scientists 721–740 publications: 259 scientists 741–760 publications: 230 scientists 761–780 publications: 228 scientists 781–800 publications: 217 scientists 801–820 publications: 204 scientists 821–840 publications: 186 scientists 841–860 publications: 177 scientists 861–880 publications: 155 scientists 881–900 publications: 139 scientists 901–920 publications: 145 scientists 921–940 publications: 116 scientists 941–960 publications: 133 scientists 961–980 publications: 91 scientists 981–1,000 publications: 96 scientists 1,001–1,020 publications: 77 scientists 1,021–1,040 publications: 70 scientists 1,041–1,060 publications: 63 scientists 1,061–1,080 publications: 77 scientists 1,081–1,100 publications: 49 scientists 1,101–1,120 publications: 54 scientists 1,121–1,140 publications: 49 scientists 1,141–1,160 publications: 51 scientists 1,161–1,180 publications: 35 scientists 1,181–1,200 publications: 39 scientists 1,201–1,220 publications: 26 scientists 1,221–1,240 publications: 37 scientists 1,241–1,260 publications: 36 scientists 1,261–1,280 publications: 27 scientists 1,281–1,300 publications: 32 scientists 1,301–1,320 publications: 28 scientists 1,321–1,340 publications: 17 scientists 1,341–1,360 publications: 30 scientists 1,361–1,380 publications: 28 scientists 1,381–1,400 publications: 17 scientists 1,401–1,420 publications: 21 scientists 1,421–1,440 publications: 15 scientists 1,441–1,460 publications: 12 scientists 1,461–1,480 publications: 12 scientists 1,481–1,500 publications: 18 scientists 1,501–1,520 publications: 14 scientists 1,521–1,540 publications: 17 scientists 1,541–1,560 publications: 15 scientists 1,561–1,580 publications: 6 scientists 1,581–1,600 publications: 2 scientists 1,601–1,620 publications: 12 scientists 1,621–1,640 publications: 11 scientists 1,641–1,660 publications: 8 scientists 1,661–1,680 publications: 5 scientists 1,681–1,700 publications: 5 scientists 1,701–1,720 publications: 10 scientists 1,721–1,740 publications: 12 scientists 1,741–1,760 publications: 14 scientists 1,761–1,780 publications: 6 scientists 1,781–1,795 publications: 5 scientists 1,796+ publications: 100 scientists
101 publications 1,796+

This scientist: 803 publications — 87th percentile

87% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 1,796 publications or more.

Thomas Powles D-index placement in Medicine in 2026

The chart shows the D-index (discipline H-index) distribution of Medicine scientists ranked by Research.com in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Thomas Powles sits on this spectrum.

70–71 D-Index: 226 scientists 72–73 D-Index: 391 scientists 74–75 D-Index: 574 scientists 76–77 D-Index: 730 scientists 78–79 D-Index: 891 scientists 80–81 D-Index: 972 scientists 82–83 D-Index: 1,027 scientists 84–85 D-Index: 1,003 scientists 86–87 D-Index: 960 scientists 88–89 D-Index: 970 scientists 90–91 D-Index: 922 scientists 92–93 D-Index: 839 scientists 94–95 D-Index: 808 scientists 96–97 D-Index: 779 scientists 98–99 D-Index: 668 scientists 100–101 D-Index: 611 scientists 102–103 D-Index: 630 scientists 104–105 D-Index: 513 scientists 106–107 D-Index: 541 scientists 108–109 D-Index: 445 scientists 110–111 D-Index: 429 scientists 112–113 D-Index: 400 scientists 114–115 D-Index: 393 scientists 116–117 D-Index: 318 scientists 118–119 D-Index: 302 scientists 120–121 D-Index: 287 scientists 122–123 D-Index: 255 scientists 124–125 D-Index: 256 scientists 126–127 D-Index: 252 scientists 128–129 D-Index: 230 scientists 130–131 D-Index: 179 scientists 132–133 D-Index: 168 scientists 134–135 D-Index: 163 scientists 136–137 D-Index: 159 scientists 138–139 D-Index: 134 scientists 140–141 D-Index: 134 scientists 142–143 D-Index: 118 scientists 144–145 D-Index: 109 scientists 146–147 D-Index: 106 scientists 148–149 D-Index: 74 scientists 150–151 D-Index: 79 scientists 152–153 D-Index: 80 scientists 154–155 D-Index: 87 scientists 156–157 D-Index: 57 scientists 158–159 D-Index: 74 scientists 160–161 D-Index: 69 scientists 162–163 D-Index: 60 scientists 164–165 D-Index: 53 scientists 166–167 D-Index: 39 scientists 168–169 D-Index: 42 scientists 170–171 D-Index: 32 scientists 172–173 D-Index: 39 scientists 174–175 D-Index: 40 scientists 176–177 D-Index: 28 scientists 178–179 D-Index: 19 scientists 180–181 D-Index: 23 scientists 182–183 D-Index: 31 scientists 184–185 D-Index: 18 scientists 186–187 D-Index: 20 scientists 188–189 D-Index: 22 scientists 190–191 D-Index: 13 scientists 192–193 D-Index: 21 scientists 194–195 D-Index: 12 scientists 196–197 D-Index: 12 scientists 198–199 D-Index: 14 scientists 200–201 D-Index: 15 scientists 202–203 D-Index: 13 scientists 204–205 D-Index: 10 scientists 206–207 D-Index: 8 scientists 208–209 D-Index: 4 scientists 210–211 D-Index: 12 scientists 212–213 D-Index: 11 scientists 214–215 D-Index: 10 scientists 216 D-Index: 4 scientists 217+ D-Index: 98 scientists
70 D-Index 217+

This scientist: 116 D-Index — 79th percentile

79% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 217 D-Index or more.

Overview

Thomas Powles is affiliated with Queen Mary University of London in the United Kingdom. Their research primarily focuses on renal cell carcinoma and cancer immunotherapy, with significant contributions to treatment approaches and biomarker development.

Their recent publications include:

  • Pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib monotherapy as first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (KEYNOTE-426): extended follow-up from a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial, 2020, The Lancet Oncology
  • European Association of Urology Guidelines on Renal Cell Carcinoma: The 2022 Update, 2022, European Urology

Thomas Powles has collaborated frequently with several coauthors throughout their career. These include:

  • Toni K. Choueiri
  • Robert J. Motzer
  • Brian I. Rini
  • Laurence Albigès
  • Camillo Porta

The scientist has published articles extensively in a number of venues. Notable frequent venues are:

  • Journal of Clinical Oncology
  • European Urology
  • The Oncologist
  • European Urology Oncology
  • The Lancet Oncology

Their work spans several main fields of study, predominantly:

  • Medicine
  • Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology

Within these, significant subfields of study include:

  • Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine
  • Oncology
  • Molecular Biology
  • Surgery
  • Cancer Research

The main research topics addressed by Thomas Powles are:

  • Renal cell carcinoma treatment
  • Cancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
  • Renal and related cancers
  • Cancer Genomics and Diagnostics
  • Bladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
  • Economic and Financial Impacts of Cancer
  • Pancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research

Best Publications

  • TGFβ attenuates tumour response to PD-L1 blockade by contributing to exclusion of T cells.

    Sanjeev Mariathasan;Shannon J. Turley;Dorothee Nickles;Alessandra Castiglioni

  • Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab versus Sunitinib in Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma

    Robert J Motzer;Nizar M Tannir;David F McDermott;Osvaldo Arén Frontera

  • Atezolizumab in patients with locally advanced and metastatic urothelial carcinoma who have progressed following treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy: A single-arm, multicentre, phase 2 trial

    Jonathan E Rosenberg;Jean Hoffman-Censits;Tom Powles;Michiel S van der Heijden

  • Pembrolizumab plus Axitinib versus Sunitinib for Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma

    Brian I. Rini;Elizabeth R. Plimack;Viktor Stus;Rustem Gafanov

  • EAU Guidelines on Renal Cell Carcinoma: 2014 Update

    Borje Ljungberg;Karim Bensalah;Steven Canfield;Saeed Dabestani

  • MPDL3280A (anti-PD-L1) treatment leads to clinical activity in metastatic bladder cancer

    Thomas Powles;Joseph Paul Eder;Gregg D. Fine;Fadi S. Braiteh

  • Atezolizumab as first-line treatment in cisplatin-ineligible patients with locally advanced and metastatic urothelial carcinoma: a single-arm, multicentre, phase 2 trial.

    Arjun V. Balar;Matthew D. Galsky;Jonathan E. Rosenberg;Thomas Powles

  • Atezolizumab versus chemotherapy in patients with platinum-treated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (IMvigor211): a multicentre, open-label, phase 3 randomised controlled trial.

    Thomas Powles;Ignacio Durán;Michiel S van der Heijden;Yohann Loriot

  • First-line pembrolizumab in cisplatin-ineligible patients with locally advanced and unresectable or metastatic urothelial cancer (KEYNOTE-052): a multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 study

    Arjun V Balar;Daniel Castellano;Peter H O'Donnell;Petros Grivas

  • Lenvatinib plus Pembrolizumab or Everolimus for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma

    Robert Motzer;Boris Alekseev;Sun Young Rha;Camillo Porta

  • Nivolumab plus Cabozantinib versus Sunitinib for Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

    Toni K. Choueiri;Thomas Powles;Mauricio Burotto;Bernard Escudier

  • Cabozantinib versus Everolimus in Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma

    Toni K. Choueiri;Bernard Escudier;Thomas Powles;Paul N. Mainwaring

  • Overview of the main outcomes in breast-cancer prevention trials.

    J Cuzick;T Powles;U Veronesi;J Forbes

  • European Association of Urology Guidelines on Renal Cell Carcinoma: The 2019 Update.

    Börje Ljungberg;Laurance Albiges;Yasmin Abu-Ghanem;Karim Bensalah

  • Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sunitinib in patients with previously untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (IMmotion151): a multicentre, open-label, phase 3, randomised controlled trial

    Brian I Rini;Thomas Powles;Michael B Atkins;Bernard Escudier

  • Clinical activity and molecular correlates of response to atezolizumab alone or in combination with bevacizumab versus sunitinib in renal cell carcinoma

    David F. McDermott;Mahrukh A. Huseni;Michael B. Atkins;Robert J. Motzer

  • COVID-19 mortality in patients with cancer on chemotherapy or other anticancer treatments: a prospective cohort study.

    Lennard Y.W. Lee;Jean Baptiste Cazier;Vasileios Angelis;Roland Arnold

  • Avelumab Maintenance Therapy for Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma

    Thomas Powles;Se Hoon Park;Eric Voog;Claudia Caserta

  • A Consensus Molecular Classification of Muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer.

    Aurélie Kamoun;Aurélien de Reyniès;Yves Allory;Yves Allory;Gottfrid Sjödahl

  • Cabozantinib versus everolimus in advanced renal cell carcinoma (METEOR): final results from a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial

    Toni K Choueiri;Bernard Escudier;Thomas Powles;Nizar M Tannir

Frequent Co-Authors

Joaquim Bellmunt
Joaquim Bellmunt Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
Toni K. Choueiri
Toni K. Choueiri Harvard University
Robert J. Motzer
Robert J. Motzer Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center
Bernard Escudier
Bernard Escudier Institut Gustave Roussy
Jonathan E. Rosenberg
Jonathan E. Rosenberg Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center
Mark Bower
Mark Bower Imperial College London
Cora N. Sternberg
Cora N. Sternberg Cornell University
Brian I. Rini
Brian I. Rini Vanderbilt University Medical Center
Yohann Loriot
Yohann Loriot University of Paris-Saclay
David F. McDermott
David F. McDermott Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center

If you think any of the details on this page are incorrect, let us know.

Report an issue

We appreciate your kind effort to assist us to improve this page, it would be helpful providing us with as much detail as possible in the text box below:

Related Online Degrees & Career Pathways

For those interested in the broader world of healthcare, online degrees create flexible opportunities to build rewarding careers beyond traditional medicine. Programs like the best online food science degree open pathways to roles in nutrition, wellness, and research—fields critical to public health.

Aspiring healthcare leaders can advance quickly with the best mha programs, which combine business management and healthcare expertise, suiting those looking to shape hospital policy or lead healthcare organizations.

Nursing professionals seeking higher qualifications now have options like rn to bsn programs without clinicals. These programs are ideal for working RNs who want to earn their bachelor’s degree online while balancing workplace commitments.

For experienced nurses aiming for the pinnacle of nursing education, accelerated msn to dnp programs offer fast-tracked advancement to the doctoral level, opening doors to teaching, leadership, and specialized clinical roles.

Exploring these online programs can help tailor a unique career path in the essential and rapidly-evolving healthcare landscape.

Best Scientists Citing Thomas Powles

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles