↓ Skip to main content

Clinical Utility of Circulating Tumour Cell Detection in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Current Treatment Options in Oncology, August 2013
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 (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
Title
Clinical Utility of Circulating Tumour Cell Detection in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer
Published in
Current Treatment Options in Oncology, August 2013
DOI 10.1007/s11864-013-0253-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alberto Fusi, Robert Metcalf, Matthew Krebs, Caroline Dive, Fiona Blackhall

Abstract

Recent years have witnessed increased interest in the detection of circulating tumour cells (CTCs) for diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment decision making in patients with cancer. Factors that have led to accelerated research in this field include advances in technologies for examination of intact CTCs, personalised medicine with treatment selection according to molecular characteristics, and continued lack of understanding of the biology of treatment resistance and metastasis. CTCs offer promise as a surrogate for tissue where there is insufficient tissue for molecular analysis and where there is a requirement to serially monitor molecular changes in cancer cells through treatment or on progression. In patients with either small cell or non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), there is evidence that CTC number is prognostic and that CTCs counted before and after treatment mirror treatment response. In patients with molecularly defined subtypes of NSCLC, CTCs demonstrate the same molecular changes as the cancer cells of the tumour. However, CTCs are not quite ready for "primetime" in the lung cancer clinic. There are still more questions than answers with respect to the optimal technologies for their detection and analysis, their biological significance, and their clinical utility. Despite this the current pace of progress in CTC technology development seems set to make "liquid biopsies" a clinical reality within the next decade. For the everyday clinician and clinical trialist, it will be important to maintain knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of the technologies and evolving evidence base for CTCs as a routinely used diagnostic tool.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 42 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 27%
Researcher 7 16%
Student > Master 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 5%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 11 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 25%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Psychology 2 5%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 13 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 05 September 2013.
All research outputs
#13,042,222
of 22,719,618 outputs
Outputs from Current Treatment Options in Oncology
#299
of 656 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,934
of 200,084 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Treatment Options in Oncology
#2
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,719,618 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 656 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 200,084 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.