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 |
Correlation of EGFR expression, gene copy number and clinicopathological status in NSCLC
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Diagnostic Pathology, September 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13000-014-0165-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rania Gaber, Iris Watermann, Christian Kugler, Nils Reinmuth, Rudolf M Huber, Philipp A Schnabel, Ekkehard Vollmer, Martin Reck, Torsten Goldmann |
| Abstract |
BackgroundEpidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) targeting therapies are currently of great relevance for the treatment of lung cancer. For this reason, in addition to mutational analysis immunohistochemistry (IHC) of EGFR in lung cancer has been discussed for the decision making of according therapeutic strategies. The aim of this study was to obtain standardization of EGFR-expression methods for the selection of patients who might benefit of EGFR targeting therapies.MethodsAs a starting point of a broad investigation, aimed at elucidating the expression of EGFR on different biological levels, four EGFR specific antibodies were analyzed concerning potential differences in expression levels by Immunohistochemistry (IHC) and correlated with fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) analysis and clinicopathological data. 206 tumor tissues were analyzed in a tissue microarray format employing immunohistochemistry with four different antibodies including Dako PharmDx kit (clone 2-18C9), clone 31G7, clone 2.1E1 and clone SP84 using three different scoring methods. Protein expression was compared to FISH utilizing two different probes.ResultsEGFR protein expression determined by IHC with Dako PharmDx kit, clone 31G7 and clone 2.1E1 (p¿¿¿0.05) correlated significantly with both FISH probes independently of the three scoring methods; best correlation is shown for 31G7 using the scoring method that defined EGFR positivity when¿¿¿10% of the tumor cells show membranous staining of moderate and severe intensity (p¿=¿0.001).ConclusionOverall, our data show differences in EGFR expression determined by IHC, due to the applied antibody. Highest concordance with FISH is shown for antibody clone 31G7, evaluated with score B (p¿=¿0,001). On this account, this antibody clone might by utilized for standard evaluation of EGFR expression by IHC.Virtual SlidesThe virtual slide(s) for this article can be found here: http://www.diagnosticpathology.diagnomx.eu/vs/13000_2014_165. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 4 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 28 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 29% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 6 | 21% |
| Unknown | 6 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 21% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 21% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 18% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 7% |
| Psychology | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 7 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 19 September 2014.
All research outputs
#12,902,902
of 22,764,165 outputs
Outputs from Diagnostic Pathology
#304
of 1,123 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#112,133
of 249,473 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Diagnostic Pathology
#6
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,764,165 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,123 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 249,473 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 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.