↓ Skip to main content

Circulating mutational portrait of cancer: manifestation of aggressive clonal events in both early and late stages

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Hematology & Oncology, May 2017
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 (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 Mendeley
Title
Circulating mutational portrait of cancer: manifestation of aggressive clonal events in both early and late stages
Published in
Journal of Hematology & Oncology, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13045-017-0468-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Meng Yang, Umit Topaloglu, W. Jeffrey Petty, Matthew Pagni, Kristie L. Foley, Stefan C. Grant, Mac Robinson, Rhonda L. Bitting, Alexandra Thomas, Angela T. Alistar, Rodwige J. Desnoyers, Michael Goodman, Carol Albright, Mercedes Porosnicu, Mihaela Vatca, Shadi A. Qasem, Barry DeYoung, Ville Kytola, Matti Nykter, Kexin Chen, Edward A. Levine, Edgar D. Staren, Ralph B. D’Agostino, Robin M. Petro, William Blackstock, Bayard L. Powell, Edward Abraham, Boris Pasche, Wei Zhang

Abstract

Solid tumors residing in tissues and organs leave footprints in circulation through circulating tumor cells (CTCs) and circulating tumor DNAs (ctDNA). Characterization of the ctDNA portraits and comparison with tumor DNA mutational portraits may reveal clinically actionable information on solid tumors that is traditionally achieved through more invasive approaches. We isolated ctDNAs from plasma of patients of 103 lung cancer and 74 other solid tumors of different tissue origins. Deep sequencing using the Guardant360 test was performed to identify mutations in 73 clinically actionable genes, and the results were associated with clinical characteristics of the patient. The mutation profiles of 37 lung cancer cases with paired ctDNA and tumor genomic DNA sequencing were used to evaluate clonal representation of tumor in circulation. Five lung cancer cases with longitudinal ctDNA sampling were monitored for cancer progression or response to treatments. Mutations in TP53, EGFR, and KRAS genes are most prevalent in our cohort. Mutation rates of ctDNA are similar in early (I and II) and late stage (III and IV) cancers. Mutation in DNA repair genes BRCA1, BRCA2, and ATM are found in 18.1% (32/177) of cases. Patients with higher mutation rates had significantly higher mortality rates. Lung cancer of never smokers exhibited significantly higher ctDNA mutation rates as well as higher EGFR and ERBB2 mutations than ever smokers. Comparative analysis of ctDNA and tumor DNA mutation data from the same patients showed that key driver mutations could be detected in plasma even when they were present at a minor clonal population in the tumor. Mutations of key genes found in the tumor tissue could remain in circulation even after frontline radiotherapy and chemotherapy suggesting these mutations represented resistance mechanisms. Longitudinal sampling of five lung cancer cases showed distinct changes in ctDNA mutation portraits that are consistent with cancer progression or response to EGFR drug treatment. This study demonstrates that ctDNA mutation rates in the key tumor-associated genes are clinical parameters relevant to smoking status and mortality. Mutations in ctDNA may serve as an early detection tool for cancer. This study quantitatively confirms the hypothesis that ctDNAs in circulation is the result of dissemination of aggressive tumor clones and survival of resistant clones. This study supports the use of ctDNA profiling as a less-invasive approach to monitor cancer progression and selection of appropriate drugs during cancer evolution.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 89 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 17%
Other 11 12%
Student > Bachelor 10 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 11%
Student > Postgraduate 8 9%
Other 20 22%
Unknown 15 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 36%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 19 21%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 6%
Computer Science 2 2%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 20 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 September 2022.
All research outputs
#2,840,172
of 24,493,053 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Hematology & Oncology
#231
of 1,264 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,395
of 315,231 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Hematology & Oncology
#7
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,493,053 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,264 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 315,231 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.