↓ Skip to main content

Circulating tumor cells and DNA as liquid biopsies

Overview of attention for article published in Genome Medicine, August 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
124 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
219 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
Circulating tumor cells and DNA as liquid biopsies
Published in
Genome Medicine, August 2013
DOI 10.1186/gm477
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ellen Heitzer, Martina Auer, Peter Ulz, Jochen B Geigl, Michael R Speicher

Abstract

For cancer patients, the current approach to prognosis relies on clinicopathological staging, but usually this provides little information about the individual response to treatment. Therefore, there is a tremendous need for protein and genetic biomarkers with predictive and prognostic information. As biomarkers are identified, the serial monitoring of tumor genotypes, which are instable and prone to changes under selection pressure, is becoming increasingly possible. To this end, circulating tumor cells (CTCs) or circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) shed from primary and metastatic cancers may allow the non-invasive analysis of the evolution of tumor genomes during treatment and disease progression through 'liquid biopsies'. Here we review recent progress in the identification of CTCs among thousands of other cells in the blood and new high-resolution approaches, including recent microfluidic platforms, for dissecting the genomes of CTCs and obtaining functional data. We also discuss new ctDNA-based approaches, which may become a powerful alternative to CTC analysis. Together, these approaches provide novel biological insights into the process of metastasis and may elucidate signaling pathways involved in cell invasiveness and metastatic competence. In medicine these liquid biopsies may emerge to be powerful predictive and prognostic biomarkers and could therefore be instrumental for areas such as precision or personalized medicine.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 219 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Malaysia 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 213 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 50 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 37 17%
Student > Master 33 15%
Student > Bachelor 29 13%
Other 15 7%
Other 28 13%
Unknown 27 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 59 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 47 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 46 21%
Engineering 11 5%
Chemistry 6 3%
Other 22 10%
Unknown 28 13%
Attention Score in Context

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 23 May 2016.
All research outputs
#18,345,822
of 22,719,618 outputs
Outputs from Genome Medicine
#1,366
of 1,435 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#148,677
of 199,041 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genome Medicine
#11
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,719,618 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 1,435 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.6. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% 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 199,041 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 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.