↓ Skip to main content

Cell-Free DNA Next-Generation Sequencing in Pancreatobiliary Carcinomas

Overview of attention for article published in Cancer Discovery, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users
patent
34 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
232 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
219 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Cell-Free DNA Next-Generation Sequencing in Pancreatobiliary Carcinomas
Published in
Cancer Discovery, September 2015
DOI 10.1158/2159-8290.cd-15-0274
Pubmed ID
Authors

Oliver A. Zill, Claire Greene, Dragan Sebisanovic, Lai Mun Siew, Jim Leng, Mary Vu, Andrew E. Hendifar, Zhen Wang, Chloe E. Atreya, Robin K. Kelley, Katherine Van Loon, Andrew H. Ko, Margaret A. Tempero, Trever G. Bivona, Pamela N. Munster, AmirAli Talasaz, Eric A. Collisson

Abstract

Patients with pancreatic and biliary carcinomas lack personalized treatment options, in part because biopsies are often inadequate for molecular characterization. Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) sequencing may enable a precision oncology approach in this setting. We attempted to prospectively analyze 54 genes in tumor and cfDNA for 26 patients. Tumor sequencing failed in nine patients (35%). In the remaining 17, 90.3% (95% CI: 73.1-97.5%) of mutations detected in tumor biopsies were also detected in cfDNA. The diagnostic accuracy of cfDNA sequencing was 97.7%, with 92.3% average sensitivity and 100% specificity across five informative genes. Changes in cfDNA correlated well with tumor marker dynamics in serial sampling (r=0.93). We demonstrate that cfDNA sequencing is feasible, accurate, and sensitive in identifying tumor-derived mutations without prior knowledge of tumor genotype or the abundance of circulating tumor DNA. cfDNA sequencing should be considered in pancreatobiliary cancer trials where tissue sampling is unsafe, infeasible, or otherwise unsuccessful.

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 219 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Unknown 216 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 52 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 15%
Student > Master 18 8%
Other 14 6%
Student > Bachelor 14 6%
Other 41 19%
Unknown 48 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 59 27%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 41 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 37 17%
Computer Science 3 1%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 1%
Other 20 9%
Unknown 56 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 28 November 2023.
All research outputs
#2,306,001
of 25,775,807 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Discovery
#1,011
of 4,154 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,670
of 287,273 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Discovery
#8
of 69 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,775,807 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,154 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 287,273 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 69 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.