↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Oncogene mutational profile in nasopharyngeal carcinoma

Overview of attention for article published in OncoTargets and therapy, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 Mendeley
Title
Oncogene mutational profile in nasopharyngeal carcinoma
Published in
OncoTargets and therapy, March 2014
DOI 10.2147/ott.s58791
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zi-Chen Zhang, Sha Fu, Fang Wang, Hai-Yun Wang, Yi-Xin Zeng, Jian-Yong Shao

Abstract

Nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) is a common tumor in Southern China, but the oncogene mutational status of NPC patients has not been clarified. Using time-of-flight mass spectrometry, 238 mutation hotspots in 19 oncogenes were examined in 123 NPC patients. The relationships between mutational status and clinical data were assessed with a χ(2) or Fisher's exact test. Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method with the log-rank test. In 123 patients, 21 (17.1%) NPC tumors were positive for mutations in eight oncogenes: six patients had PIK3CA mutations (4.9%), five NRAS mutations (4.1%), four KIT mutations (3.3%), two PDGFRA mutations (1.6%), two ABL mutations (1.6%), and one with simultaneous mutations in HRAS, EGFR, and BRAF (1%). Patients with mutations were more likely to relapse or develop metastasis than those with wild-type alleles (P=0.019). No differences or correlations were found in other clinical characteristics or in patient survival. No mutations were detected in oncogenes AKT1, AKT2, CDK, ERBB2, FGFR1, FGFR3, FLT3, JAK2, KRAS, MET, and RET. These results demonstrate an association between NPC and mutations in NRAS, KIT, PIK3CA, PDGFRA, and ABL, which are associated with patient relapse and metastasis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Malaysia 1 3%
Hong Kong 1 3%
Portugal 1 3%
Unknown 32 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 14%
Researcher 3 9%
Other 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 10 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 34%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Computer Science 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 10 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 01 April 2014.
All research outputs
#20,823,121
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from OncoTargets and therapy
#1,573
of 2,967 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#174,984
of 236,752 outputs
Outputs of similar age from OncoTargets and therapy
#13
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,967 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 236,752 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.