| Title |
Future cancer research priorities in the USA: a Lancet Oncology Commission
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Lancet Oncology, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1016/s1470-2045(17)30698-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Elizabeth M Jaffee, Chi Van Dang, David B Agus, Brian M Alexander, Kenneth C Anderson, Alan Ashworth, Anna D Barker, Roshan Bastani, Sangeeta Bhatia, Jeffrey A Bluestone, Otis Brawley, Atul J Butte, Daniel G Coit, Nancy E Davidson, Mark Davis, Ronald A DePinho, Robert B Diasio, Giulio Draetta, A Lindsay Frazier, Andrew Futreal, Sam S Gambhir, Patricia A Ganz, Levi Garraway, Stanton Gerson, Sumit Gupta, James Heath, Ruth I Hoffman, Cliff Hudis, Chanita Hughes-Halbert, Ramy Ibrahim, Hossein Jadvar, Brian Kavanagh, Rick Kittles, Quynh-Thu Le, Scott M Lippman, David Mankoff, Elaine R Mardis, Deborah K Mayer, Kelly McMasters, Neal J Meropol, Beverly Mitchell, Peter Naredi, Dean Ornish, Timothy M Pawlik, Jeffrey Peppercorn, Martin G Pomper, Derek Raghavan, Christine Ritchie, Sally W Schwarz, Richard Sullivan, Richard Wahl, Jedd D Wolchok, Sandra L Wong, Alfred Yung |
| Abstract |
We are in the midst of a technological revolution that is providing new insights into human biology and cancer. In this era of big data, we are amassing large amounts of information that is transforming how we approach cancer treatment and prevention. Enactment of the Cancer Moonshot within the 21st Century Cures Act in the USA arrived at a propitious moment in the advancement of knowledge, providing nearly US$2 billion of funding for cancer research and precision medicine. In 2016, the Blue Ribbon Panel (BRP) set out a roadmap of recommendations designed to exploit new advances in cancer diagnosis, prevention, and treatment. Those recommendations provided a high-level view of how to accelerate the conversion of new scientific discoveries into effective treatments and prevention for cancer. The US National Cancer Institute is already implementing some of those recommendations. As experts in the priority areas identified by the BRP, we bolster those recommendations to implement this important scientific roadmap. In this Commission, we examine the BRP recommendations in greater detail and expand the discussion to include additional priority areas, including surgical oncology, radiation oncology, imaging, health systems and health disparities, regulation and financing, population science, and oncopolicy. We prioritise areas of research in the USA that we believe would accelerate efforts to benefit patients with cancer. Finally, we hope the recommendations in this report will facilitate new international collaborations to further enhance global efforts in cancer control. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 245 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 | 96 | 39% |
| United Kingdom | 10 | 4% |
| Canada | 9 | 4% |
| France | 7 | 3% |
| Spain | 7 | 3% |
| Switzerland | 7 | 3% |
| India | 6 | 2% |
| Australia | 6 | 2% |
| Germany | 5 | 2% |
| Other | 31 | 13% |
| Unknown | 61 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 134 | 55% |
| Scientists | 85 | 35% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 21 | 9% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 5 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 527 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 527 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 71 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 56 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 51 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 51 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 29 | 6% |
| Other | 99 | 19% |
| Unknown | 170 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 96 | 18% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 41 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 29 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 29 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 27 | 5% |
| Other | 112 | 21% |
| Unknown | 193 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 223. 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 15 November 2022.
All research outputs
#174,843
of 25,703,943 outputs
Outputs from Lancet Oncology
#190
of 6,932 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,643
of 341,276 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Lancet Oncology
#3
of 135 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,703,943 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 6,932 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 341,276 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 135 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.