| Title |
Recommendations from an International Consensus Conference on the Current Status and Future of Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy in Primary Breast Cancer
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of Surgical Oncology, December 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1245/s10434-011-2108-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Manfred Kaufmann, Gunter von Minckwitz, Elefhterios P. Mamounas, David Cameron, Lisa A. Carey, Massimo Cristofanilli, Carsten Denkert, Wolfgang Eiermann, Michael Gnant, Jay R. Harris, Thomas Karn, Cornelia Liedtke, Davide Mauri, Roman Rouzier, Eugen Ruckhaeberle, Vladimir Semiglazov, W. Fraser Symmans, Andrew Tutt, Lajos Pusztai |
| Abstract |
The use of neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST) for the treatment of primary breast cancer has constantly increased, especially in trials of new therapeutic regimens. In the 1980 s, NST was shown to substantially improve breast-conserving surgery rates and was first typically used for patients with inoperable locally advanced or inflammatory breast cancer. Investigators have since also used NST as an in vivo test for chemosensitivity by assessing pathologic complete response. Today, by using pathologic response and other biomarkers as intermediate end points, results from trials of new regimens and therapies that use NST are aimed to precede and anticipate the results from larger adjuvant trials. In 2003, a panel of representatives from various breast cancer clinical research groups was first convened in Biedenkopf to formulate recommendations on the use of NST. The obtained consensus was updated in two subsequent meetings in 2004 and 2006. The most recent conference on recommendations on the use of NST took place in 2010 and forms the basis of this report. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 242 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 1% |
| Norway | 1 | <1% |
| Austria | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Russia | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 233 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 40 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 29 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 27 | 11% |
| Other | 26 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 16 | 7% |
| Other | 52 | 21% |
| Unknown | 52 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 122 | 50% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 15 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 14 | 6% |
| Engineering | 6 | 2% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 18 | 7% |
| Unknown | 63 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 27 May 2021.
All research outputs
#4,666,782
of 22,662,201 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#1,531
of 6,416 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,709
of 243,187 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#2
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,662,201 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,416 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 243,187 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.