↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
twitter
13 X users

Readers on

mendeley
158 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Liquid Biopsies Using Plasma Exosomal Nucleic Acids and Plasma Cell-Free DNA Compared with Clinical Outcomes of Patients with Advanced Cancers
Published in
Clinical Cancer Research, January 2018
DOI 10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-17-2007
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Blood-based liquid biopsies offer easy access to genomic material for molecular diagnostics in cancer. Commonly used cell-free DNA (cfDNA) originates from dying cells. Exosomal nucleic acids (exoNA) originate from living cells, which can better reflect underlying cancer biology. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) was used to test exosomal nucleic acids (exoNA), and droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) and BEAMing PCR were used to test cfDNA for BRAF V600, KRAS G12/G13, and EGFR exon19del/L858R mutations in 43 patients with progressing advanced cancers. Results were compared with clinical testing of archival tumor tissue and clinical outcomes. Forty-one patients had BRAF, KRAS, or EGFR mutations in tumor tissue. These mutations were detected by NGS in 95% of plasma exoNA samples, by ddPCR in 92% of cfDNA samples, and by BEAMing in 97% cfDNA samples. NGS of exoNA did not detect any mutations not present in tumor, whereas ddPCR and BEAMing detected 1 and 2 such mutations, respectively. Compared with patients with high exoNA mutation allelic frequency (MAF), patients with low MAF had longer median survival (11.8 vs. 5.9 months; P=0.006) and time to treatment failure (7.4 vs. 2.2 months; P=0.009). A low amount of exoNA was associated with partial response and stable disease ≥6 months P=0.006). NGS of plasma exoNA for common BRAF, KRAS, and EGFR mutations has high sensitivity compared with clinical testing of archival tumor and testing of plasma cfDNA. Low exoNA MAF is an independent prognostic factor for longer survival.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 158 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 158 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 21%
Researcher 21 13%
Other 11 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 5%
Student > Bachelor 8 5%
Other 24 15%
Unknown 53 34%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 52 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 29 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 1%
Engineering 2 1%
Other 6 4%
Unknown 59 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 45. 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 May 2019.
All research outputs
#1,178,585
of 34,350,842 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Cancer Research
#748
of 17,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,427
of 496,729 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Cancer Research
#13
of 162 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,350,842 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,842 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 particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 496,729 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 162 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.