↓ Skip to main content

Circulating tumor DNA detectable in early- and late-stage colorectal cancer patients

Overview of attention for article published in Bioscience Reports, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 Mendeley
Title
Circulating tumor DNA detectable in early- and late-stage colorectal cancer patients
Published in
Bioscience Reports, July 2018
DOI 10.1042/bsr20180322
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ying-Chi Yang, Dong Wang, Lan Jin, Hong-Wei Yao, Jing-Hui Zhang, Jin Wang, Xiao-Mu Zhao, Chun-Ying Shen, Wei Chen, Xue-Liang Wang, Rong Shi, Si-Yi Chen, Zhong-Tao Zhang

Abstract

Characterization, diagnosis, and treatment of colorectal cancers (CRC) are difficult due to limited biopsy information, impracticality of repeated biopsies, and cancer biomarker fallibility. Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has recently been investigated as a non-invasive way to gain representative gene mutations in tumors, in addition to monitoring disease progression and response to treatment. We analyzed ctDNA mutations and concentrations in 47 early- and late-stage CRC patients using a targeted sequencing approach using a panel that covers 50 cancer-related genes.   ctDNA mutations in 37 genes  ( were identified in 93.6% of the patients (n=47).  The results showed that TP53 , PIK3CA , APC , and EGFR were the most frequently mutated genes. Stage IV patients had significantly higher ctDNA concentration than stage I patients, and increased ctDNA concentration correlated with increased tumor size. Additionally, ctDNA detection was found to be a greater predictor of disease when compared to five known commonly used tumor biomarkers. Our study supports the use of ctDNA as a liquid biopsy to gain clinical tumor information that may facilitate early diagnosis and treatment and improve CRC patient prognosis.

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 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 50 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 20%
Student > Bachelor 9 18%
Student > Master 6 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 10%
Other 4 8%
Other 8 16%
Unknown 8 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 34%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 12%
Engineering 3 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 10 20%

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 20 June 2018.
All research outputs
#10,451,415
of 13,110,606 outputs
Outputs from Bioscience Reports
#656
of 1,008 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#200,512
of 268,114 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Bioscience Reports
#14
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,110,606 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 1,008 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.4. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 268,114 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.