| Title |
Liquid Biopsy for Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC): A Statement Paper from the IASLC
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Thoracic Oncology, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.jtho.2018.05.030 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Christian Rolfo, Philip C Mack, Giorgio V Scagliotti, Paul Baas, Fabrice Barlesi, Trever G Bivona, Roy S Herbst, Tony S Mok, Nir Peled, Robert Pirker, Luis E Raez, Martin Reck, Jonathan W Riess, Lecia V Sequist, Frances A Shepherd, Lynette M Sholl, Daniel S W Tan, Heather A Wakelee, Ignacio I Wistuba, Murry W Wynes, David P Carbone, Fred R Hirsch, David R Gandara |
| Abstract |
The isolation of circulating cell-free tumoral DNA (ctDNA) in plasma and its subsequent molecular analysis is a powerful tool that can help improve clinical outcomes across multiple cancer types, including non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Assays of this nature that utilize blood as opposed to tumor samples are frequently referred to as liquid biopsies. An increasing number of new platforms have been recently developed that improve not only the fidelity of the molecular analysis of the liquid biopsy but also the number of tests performed on a single specimen. ctDNA assays for detection of both epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) sensitizing and resistance mutations have already entered clinical practice and many other molecular tests - such as resistance mutations for ALK rearrangements - are likely to do so in the near future. Due to an abundance of new evidence, an appraisal was warranted to review strengths and weaknesses, to describe what is already in clinical practice and what has yet to be implemented, and to highlight areas in need of further investigation. A multidisciplinary panel of experts in the field of thoracic oncology with interest and expertise in liquid biopsy and molecular pathology, was convened by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC) to evaluate current available evidence with the aim of producing a set of recommendations for the use of liquid biopsy for molecular analysis in in guiding the clinical management of advanced NSCLC patients as well as identifying unmet needs. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 33 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 | 8 | 24% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 9% |
| Japan | 1 | 3% |
| Spain | 1 | 3% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 3% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 3% |
| Indonesia | 1 | 3% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 3% |
| Brazil | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 15 | 45% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 19 | 58% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 10 | 30% |
| Scientists | 3 | 9% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 409 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 409 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 55 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 45 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 40 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 36 | 9% |
| Other | 35 | 9% |
| Other | 60 | 15% |
| Unknown | 138 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 122 | 30% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 62 | 15% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 13 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 11 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 2% |
| Other | 32 | 8% |
| Unknown | 162 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 67. 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 14 December 2022.
All research outputs
#637,072
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Thoracic Oncology
#90
of 3,511 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,999
of 342,579 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Thoracic Oncology
#7
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,511 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. 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 342,579 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.