| Title |
Breast cancer circulating biomarkers: advantages, drawbacks, and new insights
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Tumor Biology, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13277-015-3944-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Andrea Ravelli, James M. Reuben, Francesco Lanza, Simone Anfossi, Maria Rosa Cappelletti, Laura Zanotti, Angela Gobbi, Chiara Senti, Paola Brambilla, Manuela Milani, Daniele Spada, Paolo Pedrazzoli, Massimo Martino, Alberto Bottini, Daniele Generali, on behalf of the Solid Tumor Working Party of European Blood and Marrow Transplantation Society (EBMT) |
| Abstract |
As of today, the level of individualization of cancer therapies has reached a level that 20 years ago would be considered visionary. However, most of the diagnostic, prognostic, and therapy-predictive procedures which aim to improve the overall level of personalization are based on the evaluation of tumor tissue samples, therefore requiring surgical operations with consequent low compliance for patients and high costs for the hospital. Hence, the research of a panel of circulating indicators which may serve as source of information about tumor characteristics and which may be obtainable by a simple withdrawal of peripheral blood today represents a growing field of interest. This review aims to objectively summarize the characteristics of the currently available breast cancer circulating biomarkers, also providing an overview about the multitude of novel potential soluble predictors which are still under evaluation. Specifically, the usefulness of a so-called "liquid biopsy" will be discussed in terms of improvements of diagnosis, prognosis, and therapy-prediction, but an overview will be given also on the potentiality of the molecular characterization arising from the isolation of circulating biomarkers and cells. Although this review will focus on the specific case of the breast, in the future liquid biopsies will hopefully be available for virtually any type of neoplasms. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 2% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Ireland | 1 | <1% |
| Egypt | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 104 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 24 | 22% |
| Researcher | 17 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 15 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 14 | 13% |
| Unknown | 23 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 32 | 29% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 22 | 20% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 15 | 14% |
| Chemistry | 4 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 9 | 8% |
| Unknown | 24 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 24 April 2018.
All research outputs
#2,606,310
of 22,824,164 outputs
Outputs from Tumor Biology
#43
of 2,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,854
of 267,563 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Tumor Biology
#3
of 186 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,824,164 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,622 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 267,563 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 186 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 98% of its contemporaries.