↓ Skip to main content

Is immunohistochemistry of BRAF V600E useful as a screening tool and during progression disease of melanoma patients?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Is immunohistochemistry of BRAF V600E useful as a screening tool and during progression disease of melanoma patients?
Published in
BMC Cancer, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12885-016-2951-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laura Schirosi, Sabino Strippoli, Francesca Gaudio, Giusi Graziano, Ondina Popescu, Michele Guida, Giovanni Simone, Anita Mangia

Abstract

In clinical practice the gold standard method to assess BRAF status in patients with metastatic melanoma is based on molecular assays. Recently, a mutation-specific monoclonal antibody (VE1), which detects the BRAF V600E mutated protein, has been developed. With this study we aimed to confirm the clinical value of the VE1 Ventana® antibody, as today a univocal validated and accredited immunohistochemical procedure does not exist, to preliminary detect BRAF status in our routine diagnostic procedures. Moreover, we explored the biological meaning of BRAF immunohistochemical labeling both as a predictor marker of response to target therapy and, for the first time, as a player of acquired tumor drug resistance. We analyzed a retrospective series of 64 metastatic melanoma samples, previously investigated for molecular BRAF status, using a fully automatized immunohistochemical method. We correlated the data to the clinicopathologic characteristics of patients and their clinical outcome. The sensitivity and the specificity of the Ventana® VE1 antibody were 89.2 and 96.2% respectively, while the positive predictive value and negative predictive value were 97.1 and 86.2%, respectively. For six mutated patients the histological sample before treatment and when disease progressed was available. The immunohistochemical BRAF V600E expression in the specimens when disease progressed was less intense and more heterogeneous compared to the basal expression. Multivariate analysis revealed that a less intense grade of positive expression is an independent predictor of a less aggressive stage at diagnosis (p = 0.0413). Our findings encourage the introduction of immunohistochemistry as a rapid screening tool for the assessment of BRAF status in melanoma patients in routine diagnostic procedures and prepare the ground for other studies to highlight the role of immunohistochemical BRAF V600E expression in patients at the time of progression.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 20%
Other 6 15%
Student > Bachelor 5 13%
Professor 2 5%
Student > Master 2 5%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 13 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 35%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 18%
Unspecified 1 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Computer Science 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 13 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 11 December 2016.
All research outputs
#6,739,797
of 22,903,988 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#1,730
of 8,330 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,856
of 415,686 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#22
of 101 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,903,988 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,330 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 415,686 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 101 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.