| Title |
Detection of ROS1 rearrangement in non-small cell lung cancer: current and future perspectives
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Lung Cancer: Targets and Therapy, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/lctt.s120172 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Giulio Rossi, Genny Jocollé, Antonia Conti, Marcello Tiseo, Federica Zito Marino, Giovanni Donati, Renato Franco, Francesca Bono, Francesca Barbisan, Francesco Facchinetti |
| Abstract |
ROS1 rearrangement characterizes a small subset (1%-2%) of non-small cell lung cancer and is associated with slight/never smoking patients and adenocarcinoma histology. Identification of ROS1 rearrangement is mandatory to permit targeted therapy with specific inhibitors, demonstrating a significantly better survival when compared with conventional chemotherapy. Detection of ROS1 rearrangement is based on in situ (immunohistochemistry, fluorescence in situ hybridization) and extractive non-in situ assays. While fluorescence in situ hybridization still represents the gold standard in clinical trials, this technique may fail to recognize rearrangements of ROS1 with some gene fusion partner. On the other hand, immunohistochemistry is the most cost-effective screening technique, but it seems to be characterized by low specificity. Extractive molecular assays are expensive and laborious methods, but they specifically recognize almost all ROS1 fusions using a limited amount of mRNA even from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumor tissues. This review is a discussion on the present and futuristic diagnostic scenario of ROS1 identification in lung cancer. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 96 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 10 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 10% |
| Researcher | 9 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 7% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 18 | 19% |
| Unknown | 36 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 29 | 30% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 11 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 5% |
| Unknown | 40 | 42% |
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 10 July 2017.
All research outputs
#15,315,638
of 25,604,262 outputs
Outputs from Lung Cancer: Targets and Therapy
#54
of 128 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#171,578
of 327,369 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Lung Cancer: Targets and Therapy
#4
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,604,262 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 128 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 327,369 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.