↓ Skip to main content

Systemic Therapy for Stage IV Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Clinical Oncology, August 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 (96th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
twitter
48 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
521 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
454 Mendeley
Title
Systemic Therapy for Stage IV Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update
Published in
Journal of Clinical Oncology, August 2017
DOI 10.1200/jco.2017.74.6065
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nasser Hanna, David Johnson, Sarah Temin, Sherman Baker, Julie Brahmer, Peter M Ellis, Giuseppe Giaccone, Paul J Hesketh, Ishmael Jaiyesimi, Natasha B Leighl, Gregory J Riely, Joan H Schiller, Bryan J Schneider, Thomas J Smith, Joan Tashbar, William A Biermann, Gregory Masters

Abstract

Purpose Provide evidence-based recommendations updating the 2015 ASCO guideline on systemic therapy for patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods The ASCO NSCLC Expert Panel made recommendations based on a systematic review of randomized controlled trials from February 2014 to December 2016 plus the Cancer Care Ontario Program in Evidence-Based Care's update of a previous ASCO search. Results This guideline update reflects changes in evidence since the previous guideline update. Fourteen randomized controlled trials provide the evidence base; earlier phase trials also informed recommendation development. Recommendations New or revised recommendations include the following. Regarding first-line treatment for patients with non-squamous cell carcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma (without positive markers, eg, EGFR/ALK /ROS1), if the patient has high programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression, pembrolizumab should be used alone; if the patient has low PD-L1 expression, clinicians should offer standard chemotherapy. All other clinical scenarios follow 2015 recommendations. Regarding second-line treatment in patients who received first-line chemotherapy, without prior immune checkpoint therapy, if NSCLC tumor is positive for PD-L1 expression, clinicians should use single-agent nivolumab, pembrolizumab, or atezolizumab; if tumor has negative or unknown PD-L1 expression, clinicians should use nivolumab or atezolizumab. All immune checkpoint therapy is recommended alone plus in the absence of contraindications. For patients who received a prior first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor, clinicians should offer standard chemotherapy. For patients who cannot receive immune checkpoint inhibitor after chemotherapy, docetaxel is recommended; in patients with nonsquamous NSCLC, pemetrexed is recommended. In patients with a sensitizing EGFR mutation, disease progression after first-line epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy, and T790M mutation, osimertinib is recommended; if NSCLC lacks the T790M mutation, then chemotherapy is recommended. Patients with ROS1 gene rearrangement without prior crizotinib may be offered crizotinib, or if they previously received crizotinib, they may be offered chemotherapy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 48 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 454 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 454 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 64 14%
Researcher 61 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 45 10%
Student > Master 44 10%
Student > Bachelor 30 7%
Other 81 18%
Unknown 129 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 151 33%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 53 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 38 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 3%
Other 39 9%
Unknown 141 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 69. 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 01 June 2023.
All research outputs
#631,094
of 25,734,859 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Oncology
#1,388
of 22,220 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,020
of 328,174 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Oncology
#34
of 119 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,734,859 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,220 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 328,174 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 119 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 71% of its contemporaries.