| Title |
Mutational Profile from Targeted NGS Predicts Survival in LDCT Screening–Detected Lung Cancers
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Thoracic Oncology, March 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Montenegro | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 51 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 19 | 37% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Unknown | 13 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 27% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 9 | 18% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 6% |
| Engineering | 2 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Unknown | 19 | 37% |
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
#20,674,485
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Thoracic Oncology
#2,614
of 3,513 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#248,873
of 322,121 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Thoracic Oncology
#23
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,513 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 322,121 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.