↓ Skip to main content

Role of Genetic Testing for Inherited Prostate Cancer Risk: Philadelphia Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2017

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Clinical Oncology, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#23 of 16,175)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
66 news outlets
twitter
98 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
87 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
153 Mendeley
Title
Role of Genetic Testing for Inherited Prostate Cancer Risk: Philadelphia Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2017
Published in
Journal of Clinical Oncology, February 2018
DOI 10.1200/jco.2017.74.1173
Pubmed ID
Authors

Veda N. Giri, Karen E. Knudsen, William K. Kelly, Wassim Abida, Gerald L. Andriole, Chris H. Bangma, Justin E. Bekelman, Mitchell C. Benson, Amie Blanco, Arthur Burnett, William J. Catalona, Kathleen A. Cooney, Matthew Cooperberg, David E. Crawford, Robert B. Den, Adam P. Dicker, Scott Eggener, Neil Fleshner, Matthew L. Freedman, Freddie C. Hamdy, Jean Hoffman-Censits, Mark D. Hurwitz, Colette Hyatt, William B. Isaacs, Christopher J. Kane, Philip Kantoff, R. Jeffrey Karnes, Lawrence I. Karsh, Eric A. Klein, Daniel W. Lin, Kevin R. Loughlin, Grace Lu-Yao, S. Bruce Malkowicz, Mark J. Mann, James R. Mark, Peter A. McCue, Martin M. Miner, Todd Morgan, Judd W. Moul, Ronald E. Myers, Sarah M. Nielsen, Elias Obeid, Christian P. Pavlovich, Stephen C. Peiper, David F. Penson, Daniel Petrylak, Curtis A. Pettaway, Robert Pilarski, Peter A. Pinto, Wendy Poage, Ganesh V. Raj, Timothy R. Rebbeck, Mark E. Robson, Matt T. Rosenberg, Howard Sandler, Oliver Sartor, Edward Schaeffer, Gordon F. Schwartz, Mark S. Shahin, Neal D. Shore, Brian Shuch, Howard R. Soule, Scott A. Tomlins, Edouard J. Trabulsi, Robert Uzzo, Donald J. Vander Griend, Patrick C. Walsh, Carol J. Weil, Richard Wender, Leonard G. Gomella

Abstract

Purpose Guidelines are limited for genetic testing for prostate cancer (PCA). The goal of this conference was to develop an expert consensus-driven working framework for comprehensive genetic evaluation of inherited PCA in the multigene testing era addressing genetic counseling, testing, and genetically informed management. Methods An expert consensus conference was convened including key stakeholders to address genetic counseling and testing, PCA screening, and management informed by evidence review. Results Consensus was strong that patients should engage in shared decision making for genetic testing. There was strong consensus to test HOXB13 for suspected hereditary PCA, BRCA1/2 for suspected hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, and DNA mismatch repair genes for suspected Lynch syndrome. There was strong consensus to factor BRCA2 mutations into PCA screening discussions. BRCA2 achieved moderate consensus for factoring into early-stage management discussion, with stronger consensus in high-risk/advanced and metastatic setting. Agreement was moderate to test all men with metastatic castration-resistant PCA, regardless of family history, with stronger agreement to test BRCA1/2 and moderate agreement to test ATM to inform prognosis and targeted therapy. Conclusion To our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive, multidisciplinary consensus statement to address a genetic evaluation framework for inherited PCA in the multigene testing era. Future research should focus on developing a working definition of familial PCA for clinical genetic testing, expanding understanding of genetic contribution to aggressive PCA, exploring clinical use of genetic testing for PCA management, genetic testing of African American males, and addressing the value framework of genetic evaluation and testing men at risk for PCA-a clinically heterogeneous disease.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 98 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 153 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 153 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 23 15%
Other 21 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 9%
Student > Master 12 8%
Professor 12 8%
Other 36 24%
Unknown 35 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 62 41%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 20 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 3%
Engineering 2 1%
Other 13 8%
Unknown 43 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 573. 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 22 February 2021.
All research outputs
#21,328
of 17,455,239 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Oncology
#23
of 16,175 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#818
of 417,777 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Oncology
#6
of 164 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,455,239 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,175 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 417,777 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 164 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 96% of its contemporaries.