↓ Skip to main content

Preoperative chemosensitivity testing as Predictor of Treatment benefit in Adjuvant stage III colon cancer (PePiTA): Protocol of a prospective BGDO (Belgian Group for Digestive Oncology) multicentric…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, April 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 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
Preoperative chemosensitivity testing as Predictor of Treatment benefit in Adjuvant stage III colon cancer (PePiTA): Protocol of a prospective BGDO (Belgian Group for Digestive Oncology) multicentric study
Published in
BMC Cancer, April 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2407-13-190
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alain Hendlisz, Vassilis Golfinopoulos, Amelie Deleporte, Marianne Paesmans, Hazem El Mansy, Camilo Garcia, Marc Peeters, Lieven Annemans, Caroline Vandeputte, Marion Maetens, Ivan Borbath, Damien Dresse, Ghislain Houbiers, Michael Fried, Ahmad Awada, Martine Piccart, Jean-Luc Van Laethem, Patrick Flamen

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Surgery is a curative treatment for patients with locally advanced colon cancer, but recurrences are frequent for those with stage III disease. FOLFOX adjuvant chemotherapy has been shown to improve recurrence-free survival and overall survival by more than 20% and is nowadays considered a standard of care. However, the vast majority of patients will not benefit from receiving cytotoxic drugs because they have either already been cured by surgery or because their tumor cells are resistant to the chemotherapy, for which predictive factors are still not available.Identifying which patients are unlikely to respond to adjuvant chemotherapy from among those who are eligible for such treatment would be a major step towards treatment personalization. It would spare such patients from unnecessary toxicities and would improve the allocation of societal healthcare resources.Methods/designPePiTA is a prospective, multicenter, non-randomised trial built on the hypothesis that preoperative chemosensitivity testing using FDG-PET/CT before and after one course of FOLFOX can identify the patients who are unlikely to benefit from 6 months of adjuvant FOLFOX treatment for stage III colon cancer.The study's primary objective is to examine the ability of PET/CT-assessed tumor FDG uptake after one course of preoperative chemotherapy to predict the outcome of adjuvant therapy, as measured by 3-year disease-free survival.Secondary objectives are to examine the predictive value of changes in PET/CT-assessed tumor FDG uptake on overall survival, to define the best cut-off value of FDG uptake for predicting treatment outcome, and to analyse the cost-effectiveness of such preoperative chemo-sensitivity testing.At study planning, exploratory translational research objectives were 1) to assess the predictive value of circulating tumor cells for disease-free survival, 2) to examine the predictive value of single nucleotide polymorphisms for disease-free survival with respect to genes related either to toxicity or to drug targets, 3) to assess genomic rearrangements associated with response or resistance to FOLFOX treatment, 4) to identify an immunologic signature associated with metabolic tumor response to FOLFOX therapy and, finally, 5) to create a bank of frozen tumor samples for future studies. DISCUSSION: PePiTA is the first study to use the primitive tumor chemosensitivity assessed by metabolic imaging as a guidance for adjuvant therapy in colon cancer. It could pave the way for tailoring the treatment and avoiding useless toxicities for the patients and inadequate expenses for the society. It could also give an interesting insight into tumoral heterogeneity, resistance to chemotherapy, genetic predisposants to oxaliplatin toxicity and immune response to cancer.EudraCT number2009-011445-13ClinicalTrials.gov numberNCT00994864.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 2%
Unknown 47 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 23%
Researcher 7 15%
Other 6 13%
Student > Master 5 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Other 9 19%
Unknown 7 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 65%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Psychology 2 4%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 7 15%

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 03 May 2013.
All research outputs
#9,905,812
of 12,372,945 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#3,021
of 4,558 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,077
of 144,248 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#16
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,372,945 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 4,558 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 144,248 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.