| Title |
Longitudinally collected CTCs and CTC-clusters and clinical outcomes of metastatic breast cancer
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10549-016-4026-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Chun Wang, Zhaomei Mu, Inna Chervoneva, Laura Austin, Zhong Ye, Giovanna Rossi, Juan P. Palazzo, Carl Sun, Maysa Abu-Khalaf, Ronald E. Myers, Zhu Zhu, Yanna Ba, Bingshan Li, Lifang Hou, Massimo Cristofanilli, Hushan Yang |
| Abstract |
Circulating tumor cell (CTC) is a well-established prognosis predictor for metastatic breast cancer (MBC), and CTC-cluster exhibits significantly higher metastasis-promoting capability than individual CTCs. Because measurement of CTCs and CTC-clusters at a single time point may underestimate their prognostic values, we aimed to analyze longitudinally collected CTCs and CTC-clusters in MBC prognostication. CTCs and CTC-clusters were enumerated in 370 longitudinally collected blood samples from 128 MBC patients. The associations between baseline, first follow-up, and longitudinal enumerations of CTCs and CTC-clusters with patient progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed using Cox proportional hazards models. CTC and CTC-cluster counts at both baseline and first follow-up were significantly associated with patient PFS and OS. Time-dependent analysis of longitudinally collected samples confirmed the significantly unfavorable PFS and OS in patients with ≥5 CTCs, and further demonstrated the independent prognostic values by CTC-clusters compared to CTC-enumeration alone. Longitudinal analyses also identified a link between the size of CTC-clusters and patient OS: compared to the patients without any CTC, those with 2-cell CTC-clusters and ≥3-cell CTC-clusters had a hazard ratio (HR) of 7.96 [95 % confidence level (CI) 2.00-31.61, P = 0.003] and 14.50 (3.98-52.80, P < 0.001), respectively. In this novel time-dependent analysis of longitudinally collected CTCs and CTC-clusters, we showed that CTC-clusters added additional prognostic values to CTC enumeration alone, and a larger-size CTC-cluster conferred a higher risk of death in MBC patients. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Malaysia | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 112 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 17% |
| Researcher | 18 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 11% |
| Other | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 11 | 10% |
| Unknown | 32 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 27 | 24% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 16% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 9% |
| Engineering | 7 | 6% |
| Chemical Engineering | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 7% |
| Unknown | 40 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 07 August 2017.
All research outputs
#15,475,586
of 22,997,544 outputs
Outputs from Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
#3,318
of 4,677 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#199,115
of 316,184 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
#37
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,997,544 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,677 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 316,184 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 71 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.