↓ Skip to main content

Systematic review of the clinical and economic value of gene expression profiles for invasive early breast cancer available in Europe

Overview of attention for article published in Cancer Treatment Reviews, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
61 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
129 Mendeley
Title
Systematic review of the clinical and economic value of gene expression profiles for invasive early breast cancer available in Europe
Published in
Cancer Treatment Reviews, November 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.ctrv.2017.10.012
Pubmed ID
Authors

E.J. Blok, E. Bastiaannet, W.B. van den Hout, G.J. Liefers, V.T.H.B.M. Smit, J.R. Kroep, C.J.H. van de Velde

Abstract

Gene expression profiles with prognostic capacities have shown good performance in multiple clinical trials. However, with multiple assays available and numerous types of validation studies performed, the added value for daily clinical practice is still unclear. In Europe, the MammaPrint, OncotypeDX, PAM50/Prosigna and Endopredict assays are commercially available. In this systematic review, we aim to assess these assays on four important criteria: Assay development and methodology, clinical validation, clinical utility and economic value. We performed a literature search covering PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane, for studies related to one or more of the four selected assays. We identified 147 papers for inclusion in this review. MammaPrint and OncotypeDX both have evidence available, including level IA clinical trial results for both assays. Both assays provide prognostic information. Predictive value has only been shown for OncotypeDX. In the clinical utility studies, a higher reduction in chemotherapy was achieved by OncotypeDX, although the number of available studies differ considerably between tests. On average, economic evaluations estimate that genomic testing results in a moderate increase in total costs, but that these costs are acceptable in relation to the expected improved patient outcome. PAM50/prosigna and EndoPredict showed comparable prognostic capacities, but with less economical and clinical utility studies. Furthermore, for these assays no level IA trial data are available yet. In summary, all assays have shown excellent prognostic capacities. The differences in the quantity and quality of evidence are discussed. Future studies shall focus on the selection of appropriate subgroups for testing and long-term outcome of validation trials, in order to determine the place of these assays in daily clinical practice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 129 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 129 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 18 14%
Researcher 15 12%
Student > Bachelor 11 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 8%
Student > Master 9 7%
Other 27 21%
Unknown 39 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 30%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 2%
Other 17 13%
Unknown 46 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 24 October 2023.
All research outputs
#4,229,987
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Treatment Reviews
#335
of 1,532 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,273
of 342,377 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Treatment Reviews
#13
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,532 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 342,377 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.