↓ Skip to main content

Assessing the Impact of Circulating Tumor DNA (ctDNA) in Patients With Colorectal Cancer: Separating Fact From Fiction

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in oncology, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 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
Assessing the Impact of Circulating Tumor DNA (ctDNA) in Patients With Colorectal Cancer: Separating Fact From Fiction
Published in
Frontiers in oncology, August 2018
DOI 10.3389/fonc.2018.00297
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emmanuel Gabriel, Sanjay P. Bagaria

Abstract

Significant advances and increased awareness have been in made in the field of non-invasive liquid biopsies for cancer, spanning several malignancies from gastrointestinal, pulmonary, and other etiologies. Broadly, the genetic source material for liquid biopsies includes circulating tumor cells, cell-free circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), or cell-free circulating tumor microRNA (mRNA). In this review, we specifically focus on ctDNA and its current role in colorectal cancer. While there are several commercially available assays that detect ctDNA, the utility of these products is still variable and therefore the clinical applications of ctDNA in the management of patients with cancer has yet to be determined. This is reflected by the recent joint review set forth by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the College of American Pathologists (CAP), clarifying and somewhat tempering the present role of ctDNA in patients with cancer. This review provides additional detail regarding ctDNA in the limited setting of colorectal cancer. The increasing importance and promise of ctDNA remains an area of active research, and further prospective studies may enhance the clinical utility of ctDNA in the future.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 15%
Researcher 7 13%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Student > Master 5 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Other 10 19%
Unknown 13 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 31%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Physics and Astronomy 2 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 4%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 16 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 21 August 2018.
All research outputs
#14,605,790
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in oncology
#3,826
of 22,432 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#169,119
of 340,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in oncology
#49
of 151 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,432 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 340,721 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 151 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 65% of its contemporaries.