↓ Skip to main content

Impact of a bronchial genomic classifier on clinical decision making in patients undergoing diagnostic evaluation for lung cancer

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pulmonary Medicine, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#1 of 1,923)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
71 news outlets
twitter
4 X users
patent
1 patent
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 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
Impact of a bronchial genomic classifier on clinical decision making in patients undergoing diagnostic evaluation for lung cancer
Published in
BMC Pulmonary Medicine, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12890-016-0217-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

J. Scott Ferguson, Ryan Van Wert, Yoonha Choi, Michael J. Rosenbluth, Kate Porta Smith, Jing Huang, Avrum Spira

Abstract

Bronchoscopy is frequently used for the evaluation of suspicious pulmonary lesions found on computed tomography, but its sensitivity for detecting lung cancer is limited. Recently, a bronchial genomic classifier was validated to improve the sensitivity of bronchoscopy for lung cancer detection, demonstrating a high sensitivity and negative predictive value among patients at intermediate risk (10-60 %) for lung cancer with an inconclusive bronchoscopy. Our objective for this study was to determine if a negative genomic classifier result that down-classifies a patient from intermediate risk to low risk (<10 %) for lung cancer would reduce the rate that physicians recommend more invasive testing among patients with an inconclusive bronchoscopy. We conducted a randomized, prospective, decision impact survey study assessing pulmonologist recommendations in patients undergoing workup for lung cancer who had an inconclusive bronchoscopy. Cases with an intermediate pretest risk for lung cancer were selected from the AEGIS trials and presented in a randomized fashion to pulmonologists either with or without the patient's bronchial genomic classifier result to determine how the classifier results impacted physician decisions. Two hundred two physicians provided 1523 case evaluations on 36 patients. Invasive procedure recommendations were reduced from 57 % without the classifier result to 18 % with a negative (low risk) classifier result (p < 0.001). Invasive procedure recommendations increased from 50 to 65 % with a positive (intermediate risk) classifier result (p < 0.001). When stratifying by ultimate disease diagnosis, there was an overall reduction in invasive procedure recommendations in patients with benign disease when classifier results were reported (54 to 41 %, p < 0.001). For patients ultimately diagnosed with malignant disease, there was an overall increase in invasive procedure recommendations when the classifier results were reported (50 to 64 %, p = 0.003). Our findings suggest that a negative (low risk) bronchial genomic classifier result reduces invasive procedure recommendations following an inconclusive bronchoscopy and that the classifier overall reduces invasive procedure recommendations among patients ultimately diagnosed with benign disease. These results support the potential clinical utility of the classifier to improve management of patients undergoing bronchoscopy for suspect lung cancer by reducing additional invasive procedures in the setting of benign disease.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 45 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 9 20%
Researcher 7 15%
Student > Master 7 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Student > Postgraduate 4 9%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 8 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 43%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 7%
Sports and Recreations 2 4%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 9 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 557. 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 June 2021.
All research outputs
#34,946
of 22,870,727 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#1
of 1,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#811
of 326,819 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#1
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,870,727 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 326,819 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.