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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Comparative analysis of the EGFR, HER2, c-MYC, and MET variations in colorectal cancer determined by three different measures: gene copy number gain, amplification status and the 2013 ASCO/CAP guideline criterion for HER2 testing of breast cancer
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Translational Medicine, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12967-017-1265-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yoonjin Kwak, Sumi Yun, Soo Kyung Nam, An Na Seo, Kyu Sang Lee, Eun Shin, Heung-Kwon Oh, Duck Woo Kim, Sung Bum Kang, Woo Ho Kim, Hye Seung Lee |
| Abstract |
The purpose of this study was to explore gene copy number (GCN) variation of EGFR, HER2, c-MYC, and MET in patients with primary colorectal cancer (CRC). Dual-colour silver-enhanced in situ hybridization was performed in tissue samples of 334 primary CRC patients. The amplification status (GCN ratio ≥2) and GCN gain (average GCN ≥4) data for the EGFR, HER2, c-MYC and MET genes were obtained. GCN variation was also assessed by the criterion of the 2013 ASCO/CAP guidelines for HER2 testing. Amplification of EGFR, HER2, c-MYC and MET was detected in 8 (2.4%), 20 (6.0%), 29 (8.7%), and 14 (4.2%) patients, respectively. Of 66 patients with at least one amplified gene, five exhibited co-amplification of genes studied (HER2-MET co-amplification: two patients; HER2-c-MYC co-amplification: two patients; EGFR-c-MYC co-amplification: one patient). There were 109 patients with GCN gains of one or more genes (EGFR: 11/334, HER2: 29/334, c-MYC; 60/334, MET: 48/334) and 32.1% (35/109) had multiple GCN gains. When each GCN was assessed by the criterion of the ASCO/CAP 2013 guideline for HER2 testing, 116 people showed positive or equivocal results for one or more genes. The cumulative amplification status had no association with patients' outcome. However, the cumulative results of the GCN gain and GCN status determined according to the ASCO/CAP guideline had a significant prognostic correlation in the univariate analysis (P values of 0.006 and 0.022, respectively). In the multivariate analysis, GCN gain and GCN status were independent prognostic factors (P values of 0.010 and 0.017, respectively). In this study, we evaluated GCN variation of four genes in a large sample of Korean CRC patients. The amplification status was not related to patient outcome. However, the GCN gain and GCN status according to the ASCO/CAP 2013 guideline were independent prognostic factors. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 23 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 13% |
| Professor | 2 | 9% |
| Researcher | 2 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 9% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 8 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 26% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 22% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 9% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 7 | 30% |
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 15 August 2017.
All research outputs
#13,565,040
of 22,996,001 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#1,598
of 4,019 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#160,817
of 317,441 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#20
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,996,001 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,019 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 317,441 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 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 61% of its contemporaries.