↓ Skip to main content

High prevalence of mutantKRAS in circulating exosome-derived DNA from early-stage pancreatic cancer patients

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Oncology, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
49 tweeters
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
194 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
207 Mendeley
Title
High prevalence of mutantKRAS in circulating exosome-derived DNA from early-stage pancreatic cancer patients
Published in
Annals of Oncology, April 2017
DOI 10.1093/annonc/mdx004
Pubmed ID
Authors

K. Allenson, J. Castillo, F.A. San Lucas, G. Scelo, D.U. Kim, V. Bernard, G. Davis, T. Kumar, M. Katz, M.J. Overman, L. Foretova, E. Fabianova, I. Holcatova, V. Janout, F. Meric-Bernstam, P. Gascoyne, I. Wistuba, G. Varadhachary, P. Brennan, S. Hanash, D. Li, A. Maitra, H. Alvarez

Abstract

Exosomes arise from viable cancer cells and may reflect a different biology than circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) shed from dying tissues. We compare exosome-derived DNA (exoDNA) to cfDNA in liquid biopsies of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Patient samples were obtained between 2003 and 2010, with clinically annotated follow up to 2015. Droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) was performed on exoDNA and cfDNA for sensitive detection of KRAS mutants at codons 12/13. A cumulative series of 263 individuals were studied, including a discovery cohort of 142 individuals: 68 PDAC patients of all stages; 20 PDAC patients initially staged with localized disease, with blood drawn after resection for curative intent; and 54 age-matched healthy controls. A validation cohort of 121 individuals (39 cancer patients and 82 healthy controls) was studied to validate KRAS detection rates in early-stage PDAC patients. Primary outcome was circulating KRAS status as detected by ddPCR. Secondary outcomes were disease-free and overall survival. KRAS mutations in exoDNA, were identified in 7.4%, 66.7%, 80% and 85% of age-matched controls, localized, locally advanced, and metastatic PDAC patients, respectively. Comparatively, mutant KRAS cfDNA was detected in 14.8%, 45.5%, 30.8%, and 57.9% of these individuals. Higher exoKRAS MAFs were associated with decreased disease-free survival in patients with localized disease. In the validation cohort, mutant KRAS exoDNA was detected in 43.6% of early-stage PDAC patients and 20% of healthy controls. Exosomes are a distinct source of tumor DNA that may be complementary to other liquid biopsy DNA sources. A higher percentage of patients with localized PDAC exhibited detectable KRAS mutations in exoDNA than previously reported for cfDNA. A substantial minority of healthy samples demonstrated mutant KRAS in circulation, dictating careful consideration and application of liquid biopsy findings, which may limit its utility as a broad cancer-screening method.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 49 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 207 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 206 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 48 23%
Researcher 39 19%
Student > Bachelor 20 10%
Other 16 8%
Student > Master 14 7%
Other 31 15%
Unknown 39 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 57 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 44 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 10%
Engineering 8 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 2%
Other 23 11%
Unknown 50 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 37. 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 26 June 2020.
All research outputs
#696,087
of 17,658,188 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Oncology
#377
of 6,599 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,567
of 366,811 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Oncology
#10
of 100 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,658,188 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,599 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 366,811 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 100 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 91% of its contemporaries.