↓ Skip to main content

Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors: The GIST of Precision Medicine

Overview of attention for article published in Trends in Cancer, December 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 (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
26 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
74 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 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.
Title
Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors: The GIST of Precision Medicine
Published in
Trends in Cancer, December 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.trecan.2017.11.006
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lin Mei, Steven C. Smith, Anthony C. Faber, Jonathan Trent, Steven R. Grossman, Constantine A. Stratakis, Sosipatros A. Boikos

Abstract

The discovery of activated KIT mutations in gastrointestinal (GI) stromal tumors (GISTs) in 1998 triggered a sea change in our understanding of these tumors and has ushered in a new paradigm for the use of molecular genetic diagnostics to guide targeted therapies. KIT and PDGFRA mutations account for 85-90% of GISTs; subsequent genetic studies have led to the identification of mutation/epimutation of additional genes, including the succinate dehydrogenase (SDH) subunit A, B, C, and D genes. This review focuses on integrating findings from clinicopathologic, genetic, and epigenetic studies, which classify GISTs into two distinct clusters: an SDH-competent group and an SDH-deficient group. This development is important since it revolutionizes our current management of affected patients and their relatives, fundamentally, based on the GIST genotype.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 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 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 60 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 8 13%
Researcher 6 10%
Student > Master 6 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Student > Postgraduate 5 8%
Other 12 20%
Unknown 18 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 28%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 5%
Other 7 12%
Unknown 18 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 31 October 2023.
All research outputs
#1,564,794
of 25,401,381 outputs
Outputs from Trends in Cancer
#193
of 841 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,096
of 448,183 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trends in Cancer
#4
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,401,381 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 841 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 448,183 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 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.