| Title |
Enumeration and targeted analysis of KRAS , BRAF and PIK3CA mutations in CTCs captured by a label-free platform: Comparison to ctDNA and tissue in metastatic colorectal cancer
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Oncotarget, November 2016
|
| DOI | 10.18632/oncotarget.13350 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Evelyn Kidess-Sigal, Haiyan E. Liu, Melanie M. Triboulet, James Che, Vishnu C. Ramani, Brendan C. Visser, George A. Poultsides, Teri A. Longacre, Andre Marziali, Valentina Vysotskaia, Matthew Wiggin, Kyra Heirich, Violet Hanft, Ulrich Keilholz, Ingeborg Tinhofer, Jeffrey A. Norton, Mark Lee, Elodie Sollier-Christen, Stefanie S. Jeffrey |
| Abstract |
Treatment of advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) requires multimodal therapeutic approaches and need for monitoring tumor plasticity. Liquid biopsy biomarkers, including CTCs and ctDNA, hold promise for evaluating treatment response in real-time and guiding therapeutic modifications. From 15 patients with advanced CRC undergoing liver metastasectomy with curative intent, we collected 41 blood samples at different time points before and after surgery for CTC isolation and quantification using label-free Vortex technology. For mutational profiling, KRAS, BRAF, and PIK3CA hotspot mutations were analyzed in CTCs and ctDNA from 23 samples, nine matched liver metastases and three primary tumor samples. Mutational patterns were compared. 80% of patient blood samples were positive for CTCs, using a healthy baseline value as threshold (0.4 CTCs/mL), and 81.4% of captured cells were EpCAM+ CTCs. At least one mutation was detected in 78% of our blood samples. Among 23 matched CTC and ctDNA samples, we found a concordance of 78.2% for KRAS, 73.9% for BRAF and 91.3% for PIK3CA mutations. In several cases, CTCs exhibited a mutation that was not detected in ctDNA, and vice versa. Complementary assessment of both CTCs and ctDNA appears advantageous to assess dynamic tumor profiles. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 114 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 25 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 20 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 16 | 14% |
| Unknown | 29 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 33 | 29% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 24 | 21% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 8% |
| Engineering | 5 | 4% |
| Materials Science | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 10 | 9% |
| Unknown | 30 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 472. 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 06 December 2022.
All research outputs
#50,625
of 23,932,398 outputs
Outputs from Oncotarget
#11
of 14,070 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,150
of 309,481 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Oncotarget
#4
of 774 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,932,398 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 14,070 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. 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 309,481 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 774 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 99% of its contemporaries.