↓ Skip to main content

Sampling circulating tumor cells for clinical benefits: how frequent?

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Hematology & Oncology, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Sampling circulating tumor cells for clinical benefits: how frequent?
Published in
Journal of Hematology & Oncology, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13045-015-0174-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sai Mun Leong, Karen ML Tan, Hui Wen Chua, Doreen Tan, Delly Fareda, Saabry Osmany, Mo-Huang Li, Steven Tucker, Evelyn SC Koay

Abstract

Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) are cells shed from tumors or metastatic sites and are a potential biomarker for cancer diagnosis, management, and prognostication. The majority of current studies use single or infrequent CTC sampling points. This strategy assumes that changes in CTC number, as well as phenotypic and molecular characteristics, are gradual with time. In reality, little is known today about the actual kinetics of CTC dissemination and phenotypic and molecular changes in the blood of cancer patients. Herein, we show, using clinical case studies and hypothetical simulation models, how sub-optimal CTC sampling may result in misleading observations with clinical consequences, by missing out on significant CTC spikes that occur in between sampling times. Initial studies using highly frequent CTC sampling are necessary to understand the dynamics of CTC dissemination and phenotypic and molecular changes in the blood of cancer patients. Such an improved understanding will enable an optimal, study-specific sampling frequency to be assigned to individual research studies and clinical trials and better inform practical clinical decisions on cancer management strategies for patient benefits.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Korea, Republic of 1 3%
United States 1 3%
France 1 3%
Unknown 37 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 28%
Student > Master 5 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Other 8 20%
Unknown 6 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 15%
Engineering 4 10%
Materials Science 2 5%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 8 20%
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 27 June 2015.
All research outputs
#20,288,585
of 22,824,164 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Hematology & Oncology
#1,036
of 1,192 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#219,865
of 263,845 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Hematology & Oncology
#22
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,824,164 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,192 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 263,845 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 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.