↓ Skip to main content

A headlight on liquid biopsies: a challenging tool for breast cancer management

Overview of attention for article published in Tumor Biology, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 Mendeley
Title
A headlight on liquid biopsies: a challenging tool for breast cancer management
Published in
Tumor Biology, January 2016
DOI 10.1007/s13277-016-4856-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniela Massihnia, Alessandro Perez, Viviana Bazan, Giuseppe Bronte, Marta Castiglia, Daniele Fanale, Nadia Barraco, Antonina Cangemi, Florinda Di Piazza, Valentina Calò, Sergio Rizzo, Giuseppe Cicero, Gianni Pantuso, Antonio Russo

Abstract

Breast cancer is the most frequent carcinoma and second most common cause of cancer-related mortality in postmenopausal women. The acquisition of somatic mutations represents the main mechanism through which cancer cells overcome physiological cellular signaling pathways (e.g., PI3K/Akt/mTOR, PTEN, TP53). To date, diagnosis and metastasis monitoring is mainly carried out through tissue biopsy and/or re-biopsy, a very invasive procedure limited only to certain locations and not always feasible in clinical practice. In order to improve disease monitoring over time and to avoid painful procedure such as tissue biopsy, liquid biopsy may represent a new precious tool. Indeed, it represents a basin of "new generation" biomarkers that are spread into the bloodstream from both primary and metastatic sites. Moreover, elevated concentrations of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) as well as circulating tumor cells (CTCs) have been found in blood plasma of patients with various tumor types. Nowadays, several new approaches have been introduced for the detection and characterization of CTCs and ctDNA, allowing a real-time monitoring of tumor evolution. This review is focused on the clinical relevance of liquid biopsy in breast cancer and will provide an update concerning CTCs and ctDNA utility as a tool for breast cancer patient monitoring during the course of disease.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 1 1%
Ireland 1 1%
Unknown 75 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 18%
Other 11 14%
Researcher 11 14%
Student > Master 8 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 9%
Other 12 16%
Unknown 14 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 38%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 16 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 1%
Computer Science 1 1%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 18 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 23 October 2016.
All research outputs
#15,354,849
of 22,840,638 outputs
Outputs from Tumor Biology
#1,051
of 2,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#231,884
of 394,766 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Tumor Biology
#52
of 243 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,840,638 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,622 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 394,766 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 243 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.