↓ Skip to main content

Oncotarget

The clinical impact of using complex molecular profiling strategies in routine oncology practice

Overview of attention for article published in Oncotarget, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
21 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 Mendeley
Title
The clinical impact of using complex molecular profiling strategies in routine oncology practice
Published in
Oncotarget, April 2018
DOI 10.18632/oncotarget.24757
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jean-François Laes, Philippe Aftimos, Philippe Barthelemy, Joaquim Bellmunt, Guy Berchem, Carlos Camps, Ramón de las Peñas, Ana Finzel, Jesús García-Foncillas, Petteri Hervonen, Ibrahim Wahid, Timo Joensuu, Louis Kathan, Anthony Kong, James Mackay, Christos Mikropoulos, Kefah Mokbel, Jean-Loup Mouysset, Sergey Odarchenko, Timothy J. Perren, Rika Pienaar, Carlos Regonesi, Shadi Salem Alkhayyat, Abdul Rahman El Kinge, Omalkhair Abulkhair, Khaled Morsi Galal, Hady Ghanem, Fadi El Karak, Angel Garcia, Gregori Ghitti, Helen Sadik

Abstract

Molecular profiling and functional assessment of signalling pathways of advanced solid tumours are becoming increasingly available. However, their clinical utility in guiding patients' treatment remains unknown. Here, we assessed whether molecular profiling helps physicians in therapeutic decision making by analysing the molecular profiles of 1057 advanced cancer patient samples after failing at least one standard of care treatment using a combination of next-generation sequencing (NGS), immunohistochemistry (IHC) and other specific tests. The resulting information was interpreted and personalized treatments for each patient were suggested. Our data showed that NGS alone provided the oncologist with useful information in 10-50% of cases (depending on cancer type), whereas the addition of IHC/other tests increased extensively the usefulness of the information provided. Using internet surveys, we investigated how therapy recommendations influenced treatment choice of the oncologist. For patients who were still alive after the provision of the molecular information (76.8%), 60.4% of their oncologists followed report recommendations. Most treatment decisions (93.4%) were made based on the combination of NGS and IHC/other tests, and an approved drug- rather than clinical trial enrolment- was the main treatment choice. Most common reasons given by physicians to explain the non-adherence to recommendations were drug availability and cost, which remain barriers to personalised precision medicine. Finally, we observed that 27% of patients treated with the suggested therapies had an overall survival > 12 months. Our study demonstrates that the combination of NGS and IHC/other tests provides the most useful information in aiding treatment decisions by oncologists in routine clinical practice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 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 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 66 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 18%
Student > Master 7 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 8%
Student > Postgraduate 5 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Other 15 23%
Unknown 18 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 27%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 9%
Engineering 4 6%
Computer Science 3 5%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 20 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 42. 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 17 November 2021.
All research outputs
#848,071
of 23,043,346 outputs
Outputs from Oncotarget
#322
of 14,346 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,902
of 327,033 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Oncotarget
#10
of 387 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,043,346 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,346 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 327,033 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 387 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.