Biomarker testing has become standard of care for patients diagnosed with non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC). Although, it can be successfully performed in circulating tumor cells, at present, the vast majority of investigations are carried out using direct tumor sampling, either through aspiration methods, which render most often isolated cells, or tissue sampling, that could range from minute biopsies to large resections. Consequently, pathologists play a central role in this process. Recent evidence suggests that refining NSCLC diagnosis might be clinically significant, particularly in cases of lung adenocarcinomas (ADC), which in turn, has prompted a new proposal for the histologic classification of such pulmonary neoplasms. These changes, in conjunction with the mandatory incorporation of biomarker testing in routine NSCLC tissue processing, have directly affected the pathologist's role in lung cancer work-up. This new role pathologists must play is complex and demanding, and requires a close interaction with surgeons, oncologists, radiologists, and molecular pathologists. Pathologists often find themselves as the central figure in the coordination of a process, that involves assuring that the tumor samples are properly fixed, but without disruption of the DNA structure, obtaining the proper diagnosis with a minimum of tissue waste, providing pre-analytical evaluation of tumor samples selected for biomarker testing, which includes assessment of the proportion of tumor to normal tissues, as well as cell viability, and assuring that this entire process happens in a timely fashion. Therefore, it is part of the pathologist's responsibilities to assure that the samples received in their laboratories, be processed in a manner that allows for optimal biomarker testing. This article goal is to discuss the essential role pathologists must play in NSCLC biomarker testing, as well as to provide a summarized review of the main NSCLC biomarkers of clinical interest.
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 07 August 2014.
All research outputs
#16,580,596
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in oncology
#6,440
of 22,416 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#136,592
of 241,800 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in oncology
#37
of 96 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,416 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 241,800 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 96 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 58% of its contemporaries.
