↓ Skip to main content

Heterogeneous mutation pattern in tumor tissue and circulating tumor DNA warrants parallel NGS panel testing

Overview of attention for article published in Molecular Cancer, August 2018
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 (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

1 news outlet
3 tweeters


25 Dimensions

Readers on

55 Mendeley
Heterogeneous mutation pattern in tumor tissue and circulating tumor DNA warrants parallel NGS panel testing
Published in
Molecular Cancer, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12943-018-0875-0
Pubmed ID

Qiaomei Guo, Junlei Wang, Jianfeng Xiao, Lin Wang, Xiaomeng Hu, Wenjun Yu, Gang Song, Jiatao Lou, JianFeng Chen


Liquid biopsy by genotyping circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has provided a non-invasive approach in assessing tumor genomic alterations in clinical oncology. However, emerging evidence in clinical settings has shown significant discordance in the genomic alterations between matched tumor tissue and blood ctDNA samples, and even between the same set of blood samples analyzed on different testing platforms. Thus, it is necessary to study underlying causes of discrepancies in these studies by genotyping tumor tissue and ctDNA in parallel using next generation sequencing (NGS) panels based on the same technology. Here we enrolled 56 non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients and evaluated tumor tissue genotyping and ctDNA based liquid biopsy by parallel NGS panel testing and compared different sample preparation conditions. Somatic mutations in plasma cell-free DNA (cfDNA) were detected in 63.6% patients with early-stage NSCLC and 60% patients with advanced-stage NSCLC. The overall concordance between matched formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded sample and cfDNA was 54.6% in early-stage NSCLC patients and 80% in advanced-stage NSCLC patients. The positive concordance rate was 44.4% and 71.4% in early-stage and advanced-stage patients, respectively. Using fresh frozen tumor samples did not improve the overall concordance rate between matched tumor tissue and cfDNA. Processing blood samples beyond 4 h after blood draw significantly decreased the detection rate of somatic mutations in cfDNA. Thus, the concordance rate between tumor tissue-based and ctDNA-based genotyping in clinical samples can be affected by multiple pre-analytical, analytical and biologic factors. Parallel NGS panel testing on both sample types for each patient may be warranted for effective guidance of cancer targeted therapies and possible early detection of cancer.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 55 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 20%
Other 8 15%
Student > Master 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 7%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 16 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 17 31%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 11%
Chemistry 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 17 31%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 21 September 2018.
All research outputs
of 13,807,706 outputs
Outputs from Molecular Cancer
of 1,158 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 269,364 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Molecular Cancer
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,807,706 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,158 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 269,364 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them