↓ Skip to main content

Mutational Profile from Targeted NGS Predicts Survival in LDCT Screening–Detected Lung Cancers

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Thoracic Oncology, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
Title
Mutational Profile from Targeted NGS Predicts Survival in LDCT Screening–Detected Lung Cancers
Published in
Journal of Thoracic Oncology, June 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.jtho.2017.03.001
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carla Verri, Cristina Borzi, Todd Holscher, Matteo Dugo, Andrea Devecchi, Katherine Drake, Stefano Sestini, Paola Suatoni, Elisa Romeo, Gabriella Sozzi, Ugo Pastorino, Mattia Boeri

Abstract

The issue of overdiagnosis in low-dose computed tomography (LDCT)-screening trials could be addressed by the development of complementary biomarkers able to improve detection of aggressive disease. The mutation profile of LDCT screening-detected lung tumours is currently unknown. Targeted next-generation sequencing was performed in 94 LDCT screening-detected lung tumours. Associations with clinicopathologic features, survival and the risk profile of a plasma microRNA signature classifier (MSC) were analyzed. Mutational spectrum and frequency observed in screening-series was similar to that reported in public datasets although a larger number of tumours without mutations in driver genes was detected. The 5-year overall survival (OS) of patients with and without mutations in the tumours was 66% and 100%, respectively (P=0.015). By combining the mutational status with the MSC risk profile, patients were stratified into 3 groups with 5-year OS ranging from 42% to 97% (P<0.0001) and the prognostic value was significant after controlling for stage (P=0.02). Tumour mutational status along with a miRNA-based liquid biopsy can provide additional information in planning clinical follow-up in lung cancer LDCT-screening programs.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 38%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 17%
Other 3 6%
Student > Bachelor 2 4%
Student > Master 2 4%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 11 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 25%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Engineering 2 4%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 18 38%

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 21 March 2018.
All research outputs
#10,142,317
of 12,689,756 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Thoracic Oncology
#1,540
of 2,378 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#213,349
of 292,854 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Thoracic Oncology
#30
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,689,756 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,378 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 292,854 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.