↓ Skip to main content

Lymph node pooling: a feasible and efficient method of lymph node molecular staging in colorectal carcinoma

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Translational Medicine, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Lymph node pooling: a feasible and efficient method of lymph node molecular staging in colorectal carcinoma
Published in
Journal of Translational Medicine, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12967-016-1114-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Natalia Rakislova, Carla Montironi, Iban Aldecoa, Eva Fernandez, Josep Antoni Bombi, Mireya Jimeno, Francesc Balaguer, Maria Pellise, Antoni Castells, Miriam Cuatrecasas

Abstract

Pathologic lymph node staging is becoming a deficient method in the demanding molecular era. Nevertheless, the use of more sensitive molecular analysis for nodal staging is hampered by its high costs and extensive time requirements. Our aim is to take a step forward in colon cancer (CC) lymph node (LN) pathology diagnosis by proposing a feasible and efficient molecular method in routine practice using reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP). Molecular detection of tumor cytokeratin 19 (CK19) mRNA with RT-LAMP was performed in 3206 LNs from 188 CC patients using two methods: individual analysis of 1449 LNs from 102 patients (individual cohort), and pooled LN analysis of 1757 LNs from 86 patients (pooling cohort). A median of 13 LNs (IQR 10-18) per patient were harvested in the individual cohort, and 18 LNs (IQR 13-25) per patient in the pooling cohort (p ≤ 0.001). The median of molecular assays performed in the pooling cohort was 2 per patient (IQR 1-3), saving a median of 16 assays/patient. The number of molecular assays performed in the individual cohort was 13 (IQR 10-18), corresponding to the number of LNs to be analyzed. The sensitivity and specificity of the pooling method for LN involvement (assessed by hematoxylin and eosin) were 88.9% (95% CI 56.5-98.0) and 79.2% (95% CI 68.9-86.8), respectively; concordance, 80.2%; PPV, 33.3%; NPV, 98.4%. The individual method had 100% sensitivity (95% CI 72.2-100), 44.6% specificity (95% CI 34.8-54.7), 50% concordance, 16.4% PPV, and 100% NPV. The amount of tumor burden detected in all LNs of a case, or total tumor load (TTL) was similar in both cohorts (p = 0.228). LN pooling makes it possible to analyze a high number of LNs from surgical colectomies with few molecular tests per patient. This approach enables a feasible means to integrate LN molecular analysis from CC specimens into pathology diagnosis and provides a more accurate LN pathological staging with potential prognostic implications.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 3%
Unknown 37 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Other 3 8%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 9 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 47%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 10 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 12 April 2017.
All research outputs
#5,758,746
of 22,940,083 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#886
of 4,010 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,120
of 421,728 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#12
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,940,083 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,010 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 421,728 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.