| Title |
Circulating Tumor Cells Versus Circulating Tumor DNA in Colorectal Cancer: Pros and Cons
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Colorectal Cancer Reports, April 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11888-016-0320-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Carlyn Rose C. Tan, Lanlan Zhou, Wafik S. El-Deiry |
| Abstract |
Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) are emerging noninvasive multifunctional biomarkers in liquid biopsy allowing for early diagnosis, accurate prognosis, therapeutic target selection, spatiotemporal monitoring of metastasis, as well as monitoring response and resistance to treatment. CTCs and ctDNA are released from different tumor types at different stages and contribute complementary information for clinical decision. Although big strides have been taken in technology development for detection, isolation and characterization of CTCs and sensitive and specific detection of ctDNA, CTC-, and ctDNA-based liquid biopsies may not be widely adopted for routine cancer patient care until the suitability, accuracy, and reliability of these tests are validated and more standardized protocols are corroborated in large, independent, prospectively designed trials. This review covers CTC- and ctDNA-related technologies and their application in colorectal cancer. The promise of CTC-and ctDNA-based liquid biopsies is envisioned. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 40% |
| Sweden | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 125 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 123 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 23 | 18% |
| Researcher | 19 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 12 | 10% |
| Other | 12 | 10% |
| Other | 25 | 20% |
| Unknown | 21 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 48 | 38% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 25 | 20% |
| Engineering | 7 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 6% |
| Chemistry | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 11 | 9% |
| Unknown | 23 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 06 December 2022.
All research outputs
#4,261,686
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Current Colorectal Cancer Reports
#131
of 736 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,366
of 315,523 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Colorectal Cancer Reports
#5
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 736 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 315,523 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 79% 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 78% of its contemporaries.