↓ Skip to main content

Personalizing the treatment of women with early breast cancer: highlights of the St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2013

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Oncology, August 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
11 X users
patent
9 patents
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
1909 Mendeley
Title
Personalizing the treatment of women with early breast cancer: highlights of the St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2013
Published in
Annals of Oncology, August 2013
DOI 10.1093/annonc/mdt303
Pubmed ID
Authors

A. Goldhirsch, E.P. Winer, A.S. Coates, R.D. Gelber, M. Piccart-Gebhart, B. Thürlimann, H.-J. Senn, Panel members, Kathy S. Albain, Fabrice André, Jonas Bergh, Hervé Bonnefoi, Denisse Bretel-Morales, Harold Burstein, Fatima Cardoso, Monica Castiglione-Gertsch, Alan S. Coates, Marco Colleoni, Alberto Costa, Giuseppe Curigliano, Nancy E. Davidson, Angelo Di Leo, Bent Ejlertsen, John F. Forbes, Richard D. Gelber, Michael Gnant, Aron Goldhirsch, Pamela Goodwin, Paul E. Goss, Jay R. Harris, Daniel F. Hayes, Clifford A. Hudis, James N. Ingle, Jacek Jassem, Zefei Jiang, Per Karlsson, Sibylle Loibl, Monica Morrow, Moise Namer, C. Kent Osborne, Ann H. Partridge, Frédérique Penault-Llorca, Charles M. Perou, Martine J. Piccart-Gebhart, Kathleen I. Pritchard, Emiel J.T. Rutgers, Felix Sedlmayer, Vladimir Semiglazov, Zhi-Ming Shao, Ian Smith, Beat Thürlimann, Masakazu Toi, Andrew Tutt, Michael Untch, Giuseppe Viale, Toru Watanabe, Nicholas Wilcken, Eric P. Winer, William C. Wood

Abstract

The 13th St Gallen International Breast Cancer Conference (2013) Expert Panel reviewed and endorsed substantial new evidence on aspects of the local and regional therapies for early breast cancer, supporting less extensive surgery to the axilla and shorter durations of radiation therapy. It refined its earlier approach to the classification and management of luminal disease in the absence of amplification or overexpression of the Human Epidermal growth factor Receptor 2 (HER2) oncogene, while retaining essentially unchanged recommendations for the systemic adjuvant therapy of HER2-positive and 'triple-negative' disease. The Panel again accepted that conventional clinico-pathological factors provided a surrogate subtype classification, while noting that in those areas of the world where multi-gene molecular assays are readily available many clinicians prefer to base chemotherapy decisions for patients with luminal disease on these genomic results rather than the surrogate subtype definitions. Several multi-gene molecular assays were recognized as providing accurate and reproducible prognostic information, and in some cases prediction of response to chemotherapy. Cost and availability preclude their application in many environments at the present time. Broad treatment recommendations are presented. Such recommendations do not imply that each Panel member agrees: indeed, among more than 100 questions, only one (trastuzumab duration) commanded 100% agreement. The various recommendations in fact carried differing degrees of support, as reflected in the nuanced wording of the text below and in the votes recorded in supplementary Appendix S1, available at Annals of Oncology online. Detailed decisions on treatment will as always involve clinical consideration of disease extent, host factors, patient preferences and social and economic constraints.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 1,909 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 5 <1%
United States 3 <1%
Portugal 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Ecuador 1 <1%
Slovakia 1 <1%
Taiwan 1 <1%
Other 9 <1%
Unknown 1882 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 240 13%
Student > Master 229 12%
Researcher 207 11%
Student > Bachelor 197 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 125 7%
Other 358 19%
Unknown 553 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 716 38%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 233 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 121 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 44 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 32 2%
Other 171 9%
Unknown 592 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 56. 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 07 June 2023.
All research outputs
#765,963
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Oncology
#309
of 7,962 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,007
of 213,279 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Oncology
#5
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,962 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 particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 213,279 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 84 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 94% of its contemporaries.