| Title |
A framework to rank genomic alterations as targets for cancer precision medicine: the ESMO Scale for Clinical Actionability of molecular Targets (ESCAT)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of Oncology, September 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1093/annonc/mdy263 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
J. Mateo, D. Chakravarty, R. Dienstmann, S. Jezdic, A. Gonzalez-Perez, N. Lopez-Bigas, C.K.Y. Ng, P.L. Bedard, G. Tortora, J.-Y. Douillard, E.M. Van Allen, N. Schultz, C. Swanton, F. André, L. Pusztai |
| Abstract |
In order to facilitate implementation of precision medicine in clinical management of cancer, there is a need to harmonise and standardise the reporting and interpretation of clinically relevant genomics data. The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Translational Research and Precision Medicine Working Group (TR and PM WG) launched a collaborative project to propose a classification system for molecular aberrations based on the evidence available supporting their value as clinical targets. A group of experts from several institutions was assembled to review available evidence, reach a consensus on grading criteria and present a classification system. This was then reviewed, amended and finally approved by the ESMO TR and PM WG and the ESMO leadership. This first version of the ESMO Scale of Clinical Actionability for molecular Targets (ESCAT) defines six levels of clinical evidence for molecular targets according to the implications for patient management: tier I, targets ready for implementation in routine clinical decisions; tier II, investigational targets that likely define a patient population that benefits from a targeted drug but additional data are needed; tier III, clinical benefit previously demonstrated in other tumour types or for similar molecular targets; tier IV, preclinical evidence of actionability; tier V, evidence supporting co-targeting approaches; and tier X, lack of evidence for actionability. The ESCAT defines clinical evidence-based criteria to prioritise genomic alterations as markers to select patients for targeted therapies. This classification system aims to offer a common language for all the relevant stakeholders in cancer medicine and drug development. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 247 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 40 | 16% |
| Spain | 26 | 11% |
| United Kingdom | 19 | 8% |
| France | 13 | 5% |
| Ireland | 5 | 2% |
| Australia | 5 | 2% |
| Canada | 5 | 2% |
| Finland | 4 | 2% |
| Belgium | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 36 | 15% |
| Unknown | 90 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 123 | 50% |
| Scientists | 74 | 30% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 43 | 17% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 5 | 2% |
| Unknown | 2 | <1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 506 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 506 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 84 | 17% |
| Other | 62 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 52 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 34 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 31 | 6% |
| Other | 85 | 17% |
| Unknown | 158 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 166 | 33% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 74 | 15% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 23 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 12 | 2% |
| Computer Science | 10 | 2% |
| Other | 47 | 9% |
| Unknown | 174 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 625. 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 05 June 2023.
All research outputs
#36,663
of 25,918,061 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Oncology
#13
of 7,914 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#719
of 347,656 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Oncology
#2
of 242 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,918,061 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 7,914 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. 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 347,656 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 242 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 99% of its contemporaries.