| Title |
Molecular Testing Guideline for the Selection of Patients With Lung Cancer for Treatment With Targeted Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors: American Society of Clinical Oncology Endorsement of the College of American Pathologists/International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer/Association for Molecular Pathology Clinical Practice Guideline Update
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Clinical Oncology, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1200/jco.2017.76.7293 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gregory P Kalemkerian, Navneet Narula, Erin B Kennedy, William A Biermann, Jessica Donington, Natasha B Leighl, Madelyn Lew, James Pantelas, Suresh S Ramalingam, Martin Reck, Anjali Saqi, Michael Simoff, Navneet Singh, Baskaran Sundaram |
| Abstract |
Purpose In response to advances in the field, the College of American Pathologists (CAP), the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC), and the Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) recently updated their recommendations for molecular testing for the selection of patients with lung cancer for treatment with targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors. ASCO has a policy and set of procedures for endorsing clinical practice guidelines that have been developed by other professional organizations. Methods The molecular testing guideline was reviewed for developmental rigor by methodologists. Then an ASCO Expert Panel reviewed the content and the recommendations. Results The ASCO Expert Panel determined that the recommendations from the CAP/IASLC/AMP molecular testing guideline are clear, thorough, and based upon the most relevant scientific evidence. ASCO endorsed the guideline with minor modifications. Recommendations This update clarifies that any sample with adequate cellularity and preservation may be tested and that analytical methods must be able to detect mutation in a sample with as little as 20% cancer cells. It strongly recommends against evaluating epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) expression by immunohistochemistry for selection of patients for EGFR-targeted therapy. New for 2017 are recommendations for stand-alone ROS1 testing with additional confirmation testing in all patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma, and RET, ERBB2 (HER2), KRAS, and MET testing as part of larger panels. ASCO also recommends stand-alone BRAF testing in patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma. Recommendations are also provided for testing methods for lung cancers that have a nonadenocarcinoma non-small-cell component, for patients with targetable mutations who have relapsed on targeted therapy, and for testing the presence of circulating cell-free DNA. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki . |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 59 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 | 13 | 22% |
| Australia | 4 | 7% |
| Brazil | 2 | 3% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 3% |
| Mexico | 2 | 3% |
| Italy | 2 | 3% |
| Chile | 2 | 3% |
| Japan | 1 | 2% |
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Unknown | 27 | 46% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 35 | 59% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 13 | 22% |
| Scientists | 11 | 19% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 323 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 323 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 48 | 15% |
| Other | 43 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 28 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 24 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 22 | 7% |
| Other | 56 | 17% |
| Unknown | 102 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 108 | 33% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 37 | 11% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 15 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 2% |
| Other | 21 | 7% |
| Unknown | 125 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 121. 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 01 June 2023.
All research outputs
#349,523
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Oncology
#648
of 22,362 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,141
of 452,380 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Oncology
#21
of 272 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,362 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.1. 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 452,380 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 272 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 92% of its contemporaries.