Title |
Perspective on the interpretation of research and translation to clinical care with therapy-associated metastatic breast cancer progression as an example
|
---|---|
Published in |
Clinical & Experimental Metastasis, February 2018
|
DOI | 10.1007/s10585-017-9872-8 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Barbara Fingleton, Kelly Lange, Beth Caldwell, Katherine V. Bankaitis, on behalf of the Board of the Metastasis Research Society |
Abstract |
This commentary was written as a collaboration between the Board of the Metastasis Research Society and two patients with metastatic breast cancer. It was conceived in response to how preclinical scientific research is sometimes presented to non-scientists in a way that can cause stress and confusion. Translation of preclinical findings to the clinic requires overcoming multiple barriers. This is irrespective of whether the findings relate to exciting responses to new therapies or problematic effects of currently used therapies. It is important that these barriers are understood and acknowledged when research findings are summarized for mainstream reporting. To minimize confusion, patients should continue to rely on their oncology care team to help them interpret whether research findings presented in mainstream media have relevance for their individual care. Researchers, both bench and clinical, should work together where possible to increase options for patients with metastatic disease, which is still in desperate need of effective therapeutic approaches. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 12 | 57% |
United Kingdom | 1 | 5% |
Unknown | 8 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 14 | 67% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 4 | 19% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 10% |
Scientists | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 9 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 3 | 33% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 22% |
Professor > Associate Professor | 1 | 11% |
Lecturer | 1 | 11% |
Unknown | 2 | 22% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 22% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 22% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 11% |
Unknown | 4 | 44% |