↓ Skip to main content

Detection of TP53/PIK3CA Mutations in Cell-Free Plasma DNA From Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients Using Next Generation Sequencing

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Breast Cancer, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 Mendeley
Title
Detection of TP53/PIK3CA Mutations in Cell-Free Plasma DNA From Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients Using Next Generation Sequencing
Published in
Clinical Breast Cancer, October 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.clbc.2016.05.004
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chiaki Nakauchi, Naofumi Kagara, Kenzo Shimazu, Atsushi Shimomura, Yasuto Naoi, Masafumi Shimoda, Seung Jin Kim, Shinzaburo Noguchi

Abstract

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) within a liquid biopsy is a promising marker for genotyping metastatic tumors. We performed next generation whole exon sequencing of TP53 and PIK3CA genes, which are the 2 most common genetic alterations in breast cancer, in plasma DNA (pDNA) of 17 metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients and in tumor DNA (tDNA) from their primary tumors. We identified 11 mutations (6 in TP53 and 5 in PIK3CA) in tDNA from 8 patients (47%) and 13 mutations (6 in TP53 and 7 in PIK3CA) in pDNA from 7 patients (41%). Six mutations in pDNA were also identified in tDNA but seven were not. Six MBC patients with TP53 and/or PIK3CA mutations in pDNA had a significantly worse survival rate (P < .05) after recurrence than that of the other 8 MBC patients without these mutations. Carcinoembryonic antigen and cancer antigen 15-3 levels did not correlate with prognosis (P = .675 and P = .877, respectively). These results suggest that mutations in ctDNA can be detected with next generation sequencing in MBC patients and could be a more useful prognostic factor for survival after recurrence than conventional tumor markers.

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 9 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 14%
Student > Bachelor 7 14%
Other 6 12%
Student > Master 5 10%
Other 9 18%
Unknown 7 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 40%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 26%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 8%
Neuroscience 2 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 7 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 17 April 2019.
All research outputs
#8,473,935
of 14,644,185 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Breast Cancer
#269
of 593 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#124,327
of 264,326 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Breast Cancer
#8
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,644,185 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 593 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 264,326 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 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 74% of its contemporaries.