| Title |
Establishing a Biological Profile for Interval Colorectal Cancers
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Digestive Diseases and Sciences, May 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10620-014-3210-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Amy L. Cisyk, Harminder Singh, Kirk J. McManus |
| Abstract |
Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths in North America. Screening for CRC and its precursor lesions is highly effective in reducing the incidence and deaths due to the disease. However, there remain a substantial number of individuals who are diagnosed with CRC soon after a negative/clearing colonoscopy with no documented evidence of CRC. The occurrence of these interval CRCs (I-CRCs) reduces the effectiveness of CRC screening and detection tests and has only recently attracted wide spread attention. I-CRCs can be subdivided into those that occur most likely due to the failure of the colonoscopy examination (missed CRC and CRC that developed from missed or incompletely resected precursor lesions) and those that develop rapidly after the colonoscopy (de novo I-CRCs). In this review, we discuss the current literature and present both the clinical and biological factors that have been identified to account for I-CRCs, with a particular focus on the aberrant molecular features that are candidate causative agents for I-CRCs. We conclude additional studies are required to fully understand the molecular features that lead to the development of I-CRCs, which in turn is essential to develop measures to prevent the occurrence of this group of CRCs and thereby improve CRC screening and detection strategies. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 22 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 5 | 23% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 9% |
| Researcher | 2 | 9% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 5 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 32% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 9% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 9% |
| Unknown | 5 | 23% |
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 29 May 2014.
All research outputs
#19,382,126
of 23,854,458 outputs
Outputs from Digestive Diseases and Sciences
#3,362
of 4,304 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#166,996
of 229,395 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Digestive Diseases and Sciences
#39
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,854,458 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,304 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 229,395 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.