↓ Skip to main content

Clinical implications and utility of field cancerization

Overview of attention for article published in Cancer Cell International, March 2007
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
patent
2 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
234 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
195 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
Clinical implications and utility of field cancerization
Published in
Cancer Cell International, March 2007
DOI 10.1186/1475-2867-7-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gabriel D Dakubo, John P Jakupciak, Mark A Birch-Machin, Ryan L Parr

Abstract

Cancer begins with multiple cumulative epigenetic and genetic alterations that sequencially transform a cell, or a group of cells in a particular organ. The early genetic events might lead to clonal expansion of pre-neoplastic daughter cells in a particular tumor field. Subsequent genomic changes in some of these cells drive them towards the malignant phenotype. These transformed cells are diagnosed histopathologically as cancers owing to changes in cell morphology. Conceivably, a population of daughter cells with early genetic changes (without histopathology) remain in the organ, demonstrating the concept of field cancerization. With present technological advancement, including laser capture microdisection and high-throughput genomic technologies, carefully designed studies using appropriate control tissue will enable identification of important molecular signatures in these genetically transformed but histologically normal cells. Such tumor-specific biomarkers should have excellent clinical utility. This review examines the concept of field cancerization in several cancers and its possible utility in four areas of oncology; risk assessment, early cancer detection, monitoring of tumor progression and definition of tumor margins.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 6 3%
Chile 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Unknown 183 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 37 19%
Researcher 23 12%
Student > Master 22 11%
Student > Bachelor 17 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 7%
Other 51 26%
Unknown 31 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 72 37%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 27 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 22 11%
Computer Science 7 4%
Physics and Astronomy 7 4%
Other 19 10%
Unknown 41 21%
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 08 August 2023.
All research outputs
#7,356,343
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Cell International
#951
of 2,231 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,898
of 90,195 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Cell International
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,231 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 90,195 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 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