↓ Skip to main content

Assessment of clinically related outcomes and biomarker analysis for translational integration in colorectal cancer (ACROBATICC): study protocol for a population-based, consecutive cohort of…

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Translational Medicine, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 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
Assessment of clinically related outcomes and biomarker analysis for translational integration in colorectal cancer (ACROBATICC): study protocol for a population-based, consecutive cohort of surgically treated colorectal cancers and resected colorectal liver metastasis
Published in
Journal of Translational Medicine, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12967-016-0951-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kjetil Søreide, Martin M. Watson, Dordi Lea, Oddmund Nordgård, Jon Arne Søreide, Hanne R. Hagland, ACROBATICC collaborators

Abstract

More accurate predictive and prognostic biomarkers for patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) primaries or colorectal liver metastasis (CLM) are needed. Outside clinical trials, the translational integration of emerging pathways and novel techniques should facilitate exploration of biomarkers for improved staging and prognosis. An observational study exploring predictive and prognostic biomarkers in a population-based, consecutive cohort of surgically treated colorectal cancers and resected colorectal liver metastases. Long-term outcomes will be cancer-specific survival, recurrence-free survival and overall survival at 5 years from diagnosis. Beyond routine clinicopathological and anthropometric characteristics and laboratory and biochemistry results, the project allows for additional blood samples and fresh-frozen tumour and normal tissue for investigation of circulating tumour cells (CTCs) and novel biomarkers (e.g. immune cells, microRNAs etc.). Tumour specimens will be investigated by immunohistochemistry in full slides. Extracted DNA/RNA will be analysed for genomic markers using specific PCR techniques and next-generation sequencing (NGS) panels. Flow cytometry will be used to characterise biomarkers in blood. Collaboration is open and welcomed, with particular interest in mutual opportunities for validation studies. The project is ongoing and recruiting at an expected rate of 120-150 patients per year, since January 2013. A project on circulating tumour cells (CTCs) has commenced, with analysis being prepared. Investigating molecular classes beyond the TNM staging is under way, including characteristics of microsatellite instability (MSI) and elevated microsatellite alterations in selected tetranucleotides (EMAST). Hot spot panels for known mutations in CRC are being investigated using NGS. Immune-cell characteristics are being performed by IHC and flow cytometry in tumour and peripheral blood samples. The project has ethical approval (REK Helse Vest, #2012/742), is financially supported with a Ph.D.-Grant (EMAST project; Folke Hermansen Cancer Fund) and a CTC-project (Norwegian Research Council; O. Nordgård). The ACROBATICC clinical and molecular biobank repository will serve as a long-term source for novel exploratory analysis and invite collaborators for mutual validation of promising biomarker results. The project aims to generate results that can help better discern prognostic groups in stage II/III cancers; explore prognostic and predictive biomarkers, and help detail the biology of colorectal liver metastasis for better patient selection and tailored treatment. The project is registered at http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01762813.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 57 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 14%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Other 4 7%
Lecturer 4 7%
Other 15 26%
Unknown 12 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 40%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 9%
Computer Science 3 5%
Engineering 3 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 4%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 15 26%
Attention Score in Context

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 23 December 2018.
All research outputs
#13,984,762
of 22,879,161 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#1,697
of 4,004 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#195,744
of 352,012 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#43
of 104 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,879,161 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,004 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 352,012 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 104 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 54% of its contemporaries.