↓ Skip to main content

Serum and blood based biomarkers for lung cancer screening: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
68 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
155 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
Serum and blood based biomarkers for lung cancer screening: a systematic review
Published in
BMC Cancer, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12885-018-4024-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gavin C. W. Chu, Kim Lazare, Frank Sullivan

Abstract

Lung cancer is the second most common cancer and the leading cause of cancer death for both men and women. Although low-dose CT (LDCT) is recommended for lung cancer screening in high-risk populations and may decrease lung cancer mortality, there is a need to improve the accuracy of lung cancer screening to decrease over-diagnosis and morbidity. Blood and serum-based biomarkers, including EarlyCDT-lung and microRNA based biomarkers, are promising adjuncts to LDCT in lung cancer screening. We evaluated the diagnostic performance of EarlyCDT-lung, micro-RNA signature classifier (MSC), and miR-test, and their impact on lung cancer-related mortality and all-cause mortality. References were identified using searches of PubMed, EMBASE, and Ovid Medline® from January 2000 to November 2015. Phase three or greater studies in the English language evaluating the diagnostic performance of EarlyCDT-lung, MSC, and miR-test were selected for inclusion. Three phase 3 studies were identified, one evaluating EarlyCDT-lung, one evaluating miR-Test, and one evaluating MSC respectively. No phase 4 or 5 studies were identified. All three biomarker assays show promise for the detection of lung cancer. MSC shows promise when used in conjunction with LDCT for lung cancer detection, achieving a positive likelihood ratio of 18.6 if both LDCT and MSC are positive, and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.03 if both LDCT and MSC are negative. However, there is a paucity of high-quality studies that can guide clinical implementation. There is currently no high quality evidence to support or guide the implementation of these biomarkers in clinical practice. Reports of further research at stages four and five for these, and other promising methods, is required.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 155 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 12%
Student > Master 19 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 10%
Student > Bachelor 13 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 7%
Other 29 19%
Unknown 48 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 26%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 21 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 3%
Neuroscience 3 2%
Other 18 12%
Unknown 63 41%
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 21 August 2018.
All research outputs
#17,930,799
of 23,023,224 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#5,001
of 8,362 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#314,624
of 446,078 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#138
of 225 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,023,224 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,362 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 446,078 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 225 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.