↓ Skip to main content

Improved tumour marker sensitivity in detecting colorectal liver metastases by combined type IV collagen and CEA measurement

Overview of attention for article published in Tumor Biology, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 Mendeley
Title
Improved tumour marker sensitivity in detecting colorectal liver metastases by combined type IV collagen and CEA measurement
Published in
Tumor Biology, July 2015
DOI 10.1007/s13277-015-3729-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hanna Nyström, Björn Tavelin, Moa Björklund, Peter Naredi, Malin Sund

Abstract

Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) is the best circulating tumour marker for colorectal liver metastasis (CLM) but has suboptimal sensitivity and specificity. Circulating type IV collagen (COLIV) is a new potential CLM marker. Here, COLIV and CEA were measured in patients with resectable CLM. COLIV levels were also related to the type of CLM. The prognostic value of these markers and the type of CLM on survival was evaluated. Preoperative plasma samples (n = 94) from patients (n = 85) with CLM undergoing liver resection were used. Seven patients underwent repeated liver resection. Samples from 118 healthy individuals served as control. Samples after liver resection (n = 27) were analysed and related to recurrence. COLIV and CEA levels were analysed, and the type of CLM was classified using paraffinated tissue. Results were analysed by logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. CLM patients had significantly elevated levels of COLIV compared to controls (p = 0.001). The sensitivity of COLIV was not better than CEA, but improved sensitivity for detecting CLM was observed with a combination of the two markers compared to using either marker alone (p = 0.001). Circulating COLIV was elevated in 81 % and CEA in 56 % of CLM patients at diagnosis, and high marker levels were related to poor survival. In follow-up samples (n = 27), patients with CLM recurrence (n = 14) had significantly elevated COLIV levels compared to patients without postoperative recurrence (n = 10) (p = 0.001). COLIV is a promising tumour marker for CLM and can possibly be used to detect postoperative CLM recurrence. The combination of COLIV and CEA is superior to either marker alone in detecting CLM.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 19%
Researcher 4 19%
Student > Master 4 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 10%
Professor 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 5 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 43%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 14%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 6 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 February 2021.
All research outputs
#7,234,904
of 22,865,319 outputs
Outputs from Tumor Biology
#360
of 2,623 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,017
of 262,916 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Tumor Biology
#18
of 173 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,865,319 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,623 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 262,916 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 173 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.