| Title |
Use of Biomarkers to Guide Decisions on Adjuvant Systemic Therapy for Women With Early-Stage Invasive Breast Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Clinical Oncology, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1200/jco.2015.65.2289 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lyndsay N Harris, Nofisat Ismaila, Lisa M McShane, Fabrice Andre, Deborah E Collyar, Ana M Gonzalez-Angulo, Elizabeth H Hammond, Nicole M Kuderer, Minetta C Liu, Robert G Mennel, Catherine Van Poznak, Robert C Bast, Daniel F Hayes |
| Abstract |
To provide recommendations on appropriate use of breast tumor biomarker assay results to guide decisions on adjuvant systemic therapy for women with early-stage invasive breast cancer. A literature search and prospectively defined study selection sought systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, prospective-retrospective studies, and prospective comparative observational studies published from 2006 through 2014. Outcomes of interest included overall survival and disease-free or recurrence-free survival. Expert panel members used informal consensus to develop evidence-based guideline recommendations. The literature search identified 50 relevant studies. One randomized clinical trial and 18 prospective-retrospective studies were found to have evaluated the clinical utility, as defined by the guideline, of specific biomarkers for guiding decisions on the need for adjuvant systemic therapy. No studies that met guideline criteria for clinical utility were found to guide choice of specific treatments or regimens. In addition to estrogen and progesterone receptors and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, the panel found sufficient evidence of clinical utility for the biomarker assays Oncotype DX, EndoPredict, PAM50, Breast Cancer Index, and urokinase plasminogen activator and plasminogen activator inhibitor type 1 in specific subgroups of breast cancer. No biomarker except for estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 was found to guide choices of specific treatment regimens. Treatment decisions should also consider disease stage, comorbidities, and patient preferences. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 35 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 | 9 | 26% |
| Spain | 6 | 17% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 9% |
| Belgium | 2 | 6% |
| Greece | 1 | 3% |
| Colombia | 1 | 3% |
| Italy | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 12 | 34% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 21 | 60% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 9 | 26% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 9% |
| Scientists | 2 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 594 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Mexico | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| China | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 590 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 80 | 13% |
| Other | 68 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 67 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 66 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 44 | 7% |
| Other | 113 | 19% |
| Unknown | 156 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 221 | 37% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 87 | 15% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 30 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 19 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 2% |
| Other | 51 | 9% |
| Unknown | 173 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 93. 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 May 2020.
All research outputs
#463,907
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Oncology
#936
of 22,362 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,573
of 412,173 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Oncology
#22
of 315 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 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 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 412,173 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 315 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 93% of its contemporaries.