↓ Skip to main content

Lymphocytic response to tumour and deficient DNA mismatch repair identify subtypes of stage II/III colorectal cancer associated with patient outcomes

Overview of attention for article published in Gut, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
54 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 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
Lymphocytic response to tumour and deficient DNA mismatch repair identify subtypes of stage II/III colorectal cancer associated with patient outcomes
Published in
Gut, January 2018
DOI 10.1136/gutjnl-2017-315664
Pubmed ID
Authors

David S Williams, Dmitri Mouradov, Robert N Jorissen, Marsali R Newman, Elham Amini, David K Nickless, Julie A Teague, Catherine G Fang, Michelle Palmieri, Marie J Parsons, Anuratha Sakthianandeswaren, Shan Li, Robyn L Ward, Nicholas J Hawkins, Ian Faragher, Ian T Jones, Peter Gibbs, Oliver M Sieber

Abstract

Tumour-infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) response and deficient DNA mismatch repair (dMMR) are determinants of prognosis in colorectal cancer. Although highly correlated, evidence suggests that these are independent predictors of outcome. However, the prognostic significance of combined TIL/MMR classification and how this compares to the major genomic and transcriptomic subtypes remain unclear. A prospective cohort of 1265 patients with stage II/III cancer was examined for TIL/MMR status and BRAF/KRAS mutations. Consensus molecular subtype (CMS) status was determined for 142 cases. Associations with 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) were evaluated and validated in an independent cohort of 602 patients. Tumours were categorised into four subtypes based on TIL and MMR status: TIL-low/proficient-MMR (pMMR) (61.3% of cases), TIL-high/pMMR (14.8%), TIL-low/dMMR (8.6%) and TIL-high/dMMR (15.2%). Compared with TIL-high/dMMR tumours with the most favourable prognosis, both TIL-low/dMMR (HR=3.53; 95% CI=1.88 to 6.64; Pmultivariate<0.001) and TIL-low/pMMR tumours (HR=2.67; 95% CI=1.47 to 4.84; Pmultivariate=0.001) showed poor DFS. Outcomes of patients with TIL-low/dMMR and TIL-low/pMMR tumours were similar. TIL-high/pMMR tumours showed intermediate survival rates. These findings were validated in an independent cohort. TIL/MMR status was a more significant predictor of prognosis than National Comprehensive Cancer Network high-risk features and was a superior predictor of prognosis compared with genomic (dMMR, pMMR/BRAFwt /KRASwt , pMMR/BRAFmut /KRASwt , pMMR/BRAFwt /KRASmut ) and transcriptomic (CMS 1-4) subtypes. TIL/MMR classification identified subtypes of stage II/III colorectal cancer associated with different outcomes. Although dMMR status is generally considered a marker of good prognosis, we found this to be dependent on the presence of TILs. Prognostication based on TIL/MMR subtypes was superior compared with histopathological, genomic and transcriptomic subtypes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 19%
Student > Master 4 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Student > Postgraduate 2 5%
Researcher 2 5%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 14 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 38%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 16%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 14 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 20 April 2018.
All research outputs
#7,655,010
of 23,305,591 outputs
Outputs from Gut
#3,443
of 6,919 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,376
of 441,847 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Gut
#41
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,305,591 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,919 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.7. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 441,847 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.