↓ Skip to main content

Circulating Tumor Cells in Breast Cancer Patients Treated by Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: A Meta-analysis.

Overview of attention for article published in JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, April 2018
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 (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
32 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
214 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
181 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
Circulating Tumor Cells in Breast Cancer Patients Treated by Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: A Meta-analysis.
Published in
JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, April 2018
DOI 10.1093/jnci/djy018
Pubmed ID
Authors

François-Clément Bidard, Stefan Michiels, Sabine Riethdorf, Volkmar Mueller, Laura J Esserman, Anthony Lucci, Bjørn Naume, Jun Horiguchi, Rafael Gisbert-Criado, Stefan Sleijfer, Masakazu Toi, Jose A Garcia-Saenz, Andreas Hartkopf, Daniele Generali, Françoise Rothé, Jeffrey Smerage, Laura Muinelo-Romay, Justin Stebbing, Patrice Viens, Mark Jesus M Magbanua, Carolyn S Hall, Olav Engebraaten, Daisuke Takata, José Vidal-Martínez, Wendy Onstenk, Noriyoshi Fujisawa, Eduardo Diaz-Rubio, Florin-Andrei Taran, Maria Rosa Cappelletti, Michail Ignatiadis, Charlotte Proudhon, Denise M Wolf, Jessica B Bauldry, Elin Borgen, Rin Nagaoka, Vicente Carañana, Jaco Kraan, Marisa Maestro, Sara Yvonne Brucker, Karsten Weber, Fabien Reyal, Dominic Amara, Mandar G Karhade, Randi R Mathiesen, Hideaki Tokiniwa, Antonio Llombart-Cussac, Alessandra Meddis, Paul Blanche, Koenraad d'Hollander, Paul Cottu, John W Park, Sibylle Loibl, Aurélien Latouche, Jean-Yves Pierga, Klaus Pantel

Abstract

We conducted a meta-analysis in nonmetastatic breast cancer patients treated by neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) to assess the clinical validity of circulating tumor cell (CTC) detection as a prognostic marker. We collected individual patient data from 21 studies in which CTC detection by CellSearch was performed in early breast cancer patients treated with NCT. The primary end point was overall survival, analyzed according to CTC detection, using Cox regression models stratified by study. Secondary end points included distant disease-free survival, locoregional relapse-free interval, and pathological complete response. All statistical tests were two-sided. Data from patients were collected before NCT (n = 1574) and before surgery (n = 1200). CTC detection revealed one or more CTCs in 25.2% of patients before NCT; this was associated with tumor size (P < .001). The number of CTCs detected had a detrimental and decremental impact on overall survival (P < .001), distant disease-free survival (P < .001), and locoregional relapse-free interval (P < .001), but not on pathological complete response. Patients with one, two, three to four, and five or more CTCs before NCT displayed hazard ratios of death of 1.09 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.65 to 1.69), 2.63 (95% CI = 1.42 to 4.54), 3.83 (95% CI = 2.08 to 6.66), and 6.25 (95% CI = 4.34 to 9.09), respectively. In 861 patients with full data available, adding CTC detection before NCT increased the prognostic ability of multivariable prognostic models for overall survival (P < .001), distant disease-free survival (P < .001), and locoregional relapse-free interval (P = .008). CTC count is an independent and quantitative prognostic factor in early breast cancer patients treated by NCT. It complements current prognostic models based on tumor characteristics and response to therapy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 32 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 181 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 181 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 24 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 12%
Researcher 20 11%
Student > Bachelor 15 8%
Student > Master 12 7%
Other 31 17%
Unknown 58 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 27%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 36 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 6%
Mathematics 3 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 1%
Other 15 8%
Unknown 66 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. 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 14 March 2019.
All research outputs
#1,129,327
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
#726
of 7,848 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,111
of 343,436 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
#10
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,848 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 343,436 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 63 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.