↓ Skip to main content

ESMO consensus conference on malignant lymphoma: general perspectives and recommendations for prognostic tools in mature B-cell lymphomas and chronic lymphocytic leukaemia

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Oncology, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
28 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 Mendeley
Title
ESMO consensus conference on malignant lymphoma: general perspectives and recommendations for prognostic tools in mature B-cell lymphomas and chronic lymphocytic leukaemia
Published in
Annals of Oncology, October 2016
DOI 10.1093/annonc/mdw419
Pubmed ID
Authors

M. Ladetto, C. Buske, M. Hutchings, M. Dreyling, G. Gaidano, S. Le Gouill, S. Luminari, C. Pott, A. Zamò, E. Zucca, ESMO Lymphoma Consensus Conference Panel Members, C. Buske, M. Dreyling, A.J.M. Ferreri, P. Fields, G. Gaidano, V. Goede, M. Hutchings, M. Ladetto, S.L. Gouill, S. Luminari, U. Mey, P.d.N. Brown, M. Pfreundschuh, C. Pott, N. Schmitz, P. Soubeyran, M. Spina, R. Stauder, A.S. Balari, M. Trněný, G.v. Imhoff, J. Walewski, U. Wedding, A. Zamò, E. Zucca

Abstract

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) consensus conference on mature B-cell lymphomas and chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) was held on 20 June 2015 in Lugano, Switzerland, and included a multidisciplinary panel of 25 leading experts. The aim of the conference was to develop recommendations on critical subjects difficult to consider in detail in the ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines. The following areas were identified: (i) the elderly patient, (ii) prognostic factors suitable for clinical use and (iii) the 'ultra-high-risk' group. Before the conference, the expert panel was divided into three working groups; each group focused on one of these areas in order to address four clinically relevant questions relating to that topic. All relevant scientific literature, as identified by the experts, was reviewed in advance. During the consensus conference, each working group developed recommendations to address each of the four questions assigned to their group. These recommendations were then presented to the entire panel and a consensus was reached. This manuscript presents recommendations dedicated to the second area of interest, i.e. prognostic factors suitable for clinical use. The four topics [i.e. interim positron emission tomography (PET), TP53 mutations, cell of origin (COO) and minimal residual disease (MRD)] were primarily chosen because of the bulk of available data together with the lack of clear guidance regarding their use in clinical practice and within clinical trials. Results, including a summary of evidence supporting each recommendation, are detailed in this manuscript. The panel acknowledged that detection of TP53 inactivation by deletion or mutation in CLL should be implemented in clinical practice (level of evidence I, strength of recommendation A). Due to their potentially high prognostic value, at least in some lymphoma entities, implementation of interim PET, COO and MRD was highly recommended in the context of clinical trials. All expert panel members approved this final article.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 X users 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 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 84 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 12 14%
Researcher 12 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 11%
Student > Master 8 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Other 18 21%
Unknown 19 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 55%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 2%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 24 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 28 January 2017.
All research outputs
#2,389,444
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Oncology
#1,276
of 7,854 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,117
of 327,578 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Oncology
#26
of 253 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,854 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 327,578 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 253 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.