↓ Skip to main content

Molecular Testing for Treatment of Metastatic Non‐Small Cell Lung Cancer: How to Implement Evidence‐Based Recommendations

Overview of attention for article published in Oncologist, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 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
Molecular Testing for Treatment of Metastatic Non‐Small Cell Lung Cancer: How to Implement Evidence‐Based Recommendations
Published in
Oncologist, September 2015
DOI 10.1634/theoncologist.2015-0114
Pubmed ID
Authors

Benjamin P. Levy, Marc D. Chioda, Dana Herndon, John W. Longshore, Mohamed Mohamed, Sai‐Hong Ignatius Ou, Craig Reynolds, Jaspal Singh, Ignacio I. Wistuba, Paul A. Bunn, Fred R. Hirsch

Abstract

: The recent discovery of relevant biomarkers has reshaped our approach to therapy selection for patients with non-small cell lung cancer. The unprecedented outcomes demonstrated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors in molecularly defined cohorts of patients has underscored the importance of genetic profiling in this disease. Despite published guidelines on biomarker testing, successful tumor genotyping faces significant hurdles at both academic and community-based practices. Oncologists are now faced with interpreting large-scale genomic data from multiple tumor types, possibly making it difficult to stay current with practice standards in lung cancer. In addition, physicians' lack of time, resources, and face-to-face opportunities can interfere with the multidisciplinary approach that is essential to delivery of care. Finally, several challenges exist in optimizing the amount and quality of tissue for molecular testing. Recognizing the importance of biomarker testing, a series of advisory boards were recently convened to address these hurdles and clarify best practices. We reviewed these challenges and established recommendations to help optimize tissue acquisition, processing, and testing within the framework of a multidisciplinary approach. Although several professional societies have incorporated biomarker testing recommendations into clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), health care providers still face considerable challenges when establishing and implementing these standards. Developing and instituting protocols to ensure that all appropriate patients are tested for molecular biomarkers requires communication among the various specialists involved in the care of patients with NSCLC. This report provides insights into key challenges and recommendations for molecular testing of patients with metastatic NSCLC, summarized from a multidisciplinary team of experts spanning academic, community, and integrated health systems.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 66 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 12 18%
Researcher 12 18%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Student > Postgraduate 4 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 10 15%
Unknown 20 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 42%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 23 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 25 October 2015.
All research outputs
#15,801,823
of 25,461,852 outputs
Outputs from Oncologist
#2,806
of 3,995 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#142,550
of 276,972 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Oncologist
#32
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,461,852 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,995 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 276,972 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.