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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Prognostic and predictive value of ERβ1 and ERβ2 in the Intergroup Exemestane Study (IES)—first results from PathIES † † Presented at: 5th IMPAKT Breast Cancer Conference, 2–4 May 2013.
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of Oncology, May 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1093/annonc/mdv242 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
V. Speirs, G. Viale, K. Mousa, C. Palmieri, S.N. Reed, H. Nicholas, M. Cheang, J. Jassem, P.E. Lønning, E. Kalaitzaki, C.J.H. van de Velde, B.B. Rasmussen, D.M. Verhoeven, A.M. Shaaban, J.M.S. Bartlett, J.M. Bliss, R.C. Coombes, On behalf of the PathIES Sub-Committee, J. Jassem, A. Brociek, A. Pliszka, J. Andersen, B. Bruun Rasmussen, C. van de Velde, E. Meershoek, R. Paridaens, A. Delorge, A. Coates, R. Camler, R.C. Coombes, K. Mousa, S. Reed, D. Verhoeven, S. Herman, M. Visini, P. Lonning |
| Abstract |
IES was a randomised study that showed a survival benefit of switching adjuvant endocrine therapy after 2-3 years from tamoxifen to exemestane. PathIES aimed to assess the potential prognostic and predictive value of ERβ1 and ERβ2 expression in primary tumours in order to determine benefit in the two treatment arms. Primary tumour samples were available for 1256 patients (27% IES population). ERβ1 and ERβ2 expression was dichotomised at the median IHC score (high if ERβ1≥191, ERβ2≥164). Hazard ratios (HR) were estimated by multivariable Cox proportional hazards models adjusting for clinicopathological factors. Treatment effects with biomarker expressions were determined by interaction tests. Analysis explored effects of markers both as a continuous variable and with dichotomised cut offs. Neither ERβ1 nor ERβ2 were associated with disease free survival (DFS) or overall survival (OS) in the whole cohort. In patients treated with continued tamoxifen, high ERβ1 expression compared with low was associated with better DFS (HR=0.38:95%CI; 0.21-0.68, p=0.001). DFS benefit of exemestane over tamoxifen (HR=0.40:95%CI; 0.22-0.70) was found in the low ERβ1 subgroup (interaction p=0.01). No significant difference with treatment was observed for ERβ2 expression in either DFS or OS. In the PathIES population exemestane appeared to be superior to tamoxifen among patients with low ERβ1 expression but not in those with high ERβ1 expression. This is the first trial of its kind to report a parameter potentially predicting benefit of an aromatase inhibitor as compared to tamoxifen and an independent validation is warranted. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 36 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 6 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 14% |
| Professor | 5 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 11% |
| Researcher | 4 | 11% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 10 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 36% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 11% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Chemical Engineering | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 13 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 24 May 2015.
All research outputs
#19,942,887
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Oncology
#6,592
of 7,854 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,286
of 281,624 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Oncology
#105
of 124 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,854 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 281,624 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 124 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.