| Title |
Liquid Biopsy and its Potential for Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Gastrointestinal Cancer, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12029-016-9801-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jian Zhou, Ao Huang, Xin-Rong Yang |
| Abstract |
We summarized the recent findings of liquid biopsy in cancer field and discussed its potential utility in hepatocellular carcinoma. Literature published in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Direct electronic databases was searched and reviewed. Liquid biopsy specially referred to the detection of nucleic acids (circulating cell-free DNA, cfDNA) and circulating tumor cells (CTCs) in the blood of cancer patients. Compared to conventional single-site sampling or biopsy method, liquid biopsy had the advantages such as non-invasiveness, dynamic monitoring, and the most important of all, overcoming the limit of spatial and temporal heterogeneity. The genomic information of cancer could be profiled by genotyping cfDNA/CTC and subsequently applied to make molecular classification, targeted therapy guidance, and unveil drug resistance mechanisms. The serial sampling feature of liquid biopsy made it possible to monitor treatment response in a real-time manner and predict tumor metastasis/recurrence in advance. Liquid biopsy is a non-invasive, dynamic, and informative sampling method with important clinical translational significance in cancer research and practice. Much work needs to be done before it is used in the management of HCC. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| India | 1 | 1% |
| Ireland | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 69 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 17% |
| Researcher | 12 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 15% |
| Other | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 15 | 21% |
| Unknown | 11 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 29% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 14 | 19% |
| Engineering | 6 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 9 | 13% |
| Unknown | 15 | 21% |
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 13 March 2016.
All research outputs
#17,793,546
of 22,856,968 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Gastrointestinal Cancer
#210
of 523 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#204,257
of 299,532 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Gastrointestinal Cancer
#4
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,856,968 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 523 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.0. 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 299,532 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.