↓ Skip to main content

Circulating tumour DNA sequence analysis as an alternative to multiple myeloma bone marrow aspirates

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Communications, May 2017
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 (90th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
13 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
67 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
138 Mendeley
Title
Circulating tumour DNA sequence analysis as an alternative to multiple myeloma bone marrow aspirates
Published in
Nature Communications, May 2017
DOI 10.1038/ncomms15086
Pubmed ID
Authors

Olena Kis, Rayan Kaedbey, Signy Chow, Arnavaz Danesh, Mark Dowar, Tiantian Li, Zhihua Li, Jessica Liu, Mark Mansour, Esther Masih-Khan, Tong Zhang, Scott V. Bratman, Amit M. Oza, Suzanne Kamel-Reid, Suzanne Trudel, Trevor J. Pugh

Abstract

The requirement for bone-marrow aspirates for genomic profiling of multiple myeloma poses an obstacle to enrolment and retention of patients in clinical trials. We evaluated whether circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) analysis is comparable to molecular profiling of myeloma using bone-marrow tumour cells. We report here a hybrid-capture-based Liquid Biopsy Sequencing (LB-Seq) method used to sequence all protein-coding exons of KRAS, NRAS, BRAF, EGFR and PIK3CA in 64 cfDNA specimens from 53 myeloma patients to >20,000 × median coverage. This method includes a variant filtering algorithm that enables detection of tumour-derived fragments present in cfDNA at allele frequencies as low as 0.25% (median 3.2%, range 0.25-46%). Using LB-Seq analysis of 48 cfDNA specimens with matched bone-marrow data, we detect 49/51 likely somatic mutations, with subclonal hierarchies reflecting tumour profiling (96% concordance), and four additional mutations likely missed by bone-marrow testing (>98% specificity). Overall, LB-Seq is a high fidelity adjunct to genetic profiling of bone-marrow in multiple myeloma.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 138 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 138 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 39 28%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 14%
Student > Bachelor 16 12%
Other 13 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 8%
Other 20 14%
Unknown 19 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 29%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 37 27%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 13%
Computer Science 5 4%
Engineering 5 4%
Other 11 8%
Unknown 22 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 16 May 2018.
All research outputs
#647,441
of 12,953,360 outputs
Outputs from Nature Communications
#8,639
of 22,366 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,761
of 261,334 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Communications
#428
of 938 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,953,360 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,366 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 47.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 261,334 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 938 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.