↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Prognostic value of circulating tumor cells detected with the CellSearch System in patients with gastric cancer: evidence from a meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in OncoTargets and therapy, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
11 Mendeley
Title
Prognostic value of circulating tumor cells detected with the CellSearch System in patients with gastric cancer: evidence from a meta-analysis
Published in
OncoTargets and therapy, February 2018
DOI 10.2147/ott.s154114
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chaogang Yang, Kun Zou, Zewei Yuan, Tangxi Guo, Bin Xiong

Abstract

Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) have been proposed as a marker for predicting the prognosis of cancer. However, the prognostic value of CTCs detected with the CellSearch System in patients with gastric cancer (GC) remains controversial. We performed a meta-analysis of available studies to investigate this topic. Two authors systematically searched the studies independently in PubMed, Science Citation Index, Cochrane Database, Embase, and the references in relevant studies (up to September 2017) using keywords. Our meta-analysis was performed in Stata software, version 12.0 (2011; Stata Corp, College Station, TX, USA), with the risk ratio (RR), hazard ratio (HR), and 95% CI as the effect measures. Subgroup analyses and meta-regression were also conducted. Seven studies (including eight sets of data) containing 579 patients with GC from four countries were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled results showed CTC-positive status detected by the CellSearch System was significantly associated with poor overall survival (HR =2.09, 95% CI [1.71, 2.55],P<0.001,I2=31.5%) and progression-free survival (HR =2.11, 95% CI [1.25, 3.57],P=0.005,I2=75.6%) of patients with GC, regardless of sampling time. The disease control rate of CTC-positive group was lower than that of CTC-negative group for both baseline and intra-therapy, although no statistical difference existed at both sampling time points (baseline: 69.5% versus 81.8%, RR=0.79, 95% CI [0.54, 1.16],P=0.23,I2=68.0%; intra-therapy: 50.0% versus 85.9%, RR=0.24, 95% CI [0.02, 3.13],P=0.28,I2=87.4%). Our meta-analysis demonstrated that CTCs detected with the CellSearch System from the peripheral blood had significant prognostic value and might predict poor response to chemotherapy for patients with GC.

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 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 11 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Lecturer 2 18%
Student > Bachelor 2 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 18%
Student > Master 2 18%
Researcher 1 9%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 64%
Materials Science 1 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 9%
Unknown 2 18%
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 13 March 2018.
All research outputs
#20,663,600
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from OncoTargets and therapy
#1,597
of 3,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#343,060
of 448,849 outputs
Outputs of similar age from OncoTargets and therapy
#42
of 80 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 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 3,016 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. 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 448,849 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 80 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.