You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Dichotomous ALK-IHC Is a Better Predictor for ALK Inhibition Outcome than Traditional ALK-FISH in Advanced Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Cancer Research, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-16-1631 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
A.J. van der Wekken, R. Pelgrim, N. 't Hart, N. Werner, M.F. Mastik, L. Hendriks, E.H.F.M. van der Heijden, M. Looijen-Salamon, A.J. de Langen, J. Staal-van den Brekel, S. Riemersma, B.E. van den Borne, E.J.M. Speel, A-M.C. Dingemans, T.J.N. Hiltermann, A. van den Berg, W. Timens, E. Schuuring, H.J.M. Groen |
| Abstract |
ALK rearrangement detection using fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) is the standard test to identify non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) patients eligible for treatment with ALK inhibitors. Recently ALK protein expression in resectable NSCLC showed predictive value. We evaluated tumor response rate and survival after crizotinib treatment of advanced NSCLC patients with ALK activation using both dichotomous immunohistochemical staining (IHC) and FISH. Design Stage IV NSCLC patients treated with crizotinib were selected. Tumor response was assessed. ALK rearrangements were detected by FISH (Vysis ALK-Break-Apart FISH-Probe KIT) and IHC ( Ventana ALK-D5F3-CDx assay). Cohorts of ALK-FISH-positive advanced NSCLC patients from 4 other hospitals were used for validation. Results Twenty-nine consecutive patients with ALK-positive advanced NSCLC diagnosed by FISH and/or IHC on small biopsies or fine needle aspirations (FNA) were treated with ALK inhibitors. All ALK-IHC-positive patients responded to crizotinib except three with primary resistance. No tumor response was observed in 13 ALK-FISH-positive but ALK-IHC-negative patients This was confirmed in an external cohort of 16 patients. ROC curves for ALK-IHC and ALK-FISH compared to treatment outcome, showed that dichotomous ALK-IHC outperforms ALK-FISH (tumor response AUC 0.86 vs. 0.64 p=0.03; PFS AUC 0.86 vs. 0.36 p=0.005; OS AUC 0.78 vs. 0.41 p=0.01, respectively). Conclusions Dichotomous ALK-IHC is superior to ALK-FISH on small biopsies and FNA to predict tumor response and survival to crizotinib for advanced NSCLC patients. Our data strongly suggest adapting the guidelines and using dichotomous ALK-IHC as standard companion diagnostic test to select NSCLC patients that benefit from ALK-targeting therapy. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 48 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 | 18 | 38% |
| Spain | 7 | 15% |
| France | 3 | 6% |
| Italy | 2 | 4% |
| Mexico | 2 | 4% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 2% |
| Germany | 1 | 2% |
| Kuwait | 1 | 2% |
| Turkey | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 11 | 23% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 27 | 56% |
| Scientists | 13 | 27% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 8 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 51 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 11 | 22% |
| Other | 7 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 10% |
| Professor | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 8 | 16% |
| Unknown | 13 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 41% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Unknown | 16 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 185. 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 12 May 2021.
All research outputs
#180,658
of 22,953,506 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Cancer Research
#74
of 12,632 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,413
of 317,269 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Cancer Research
#6
of 255 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,953,506 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,632 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 317,269 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 255 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.