↓ Skip to main content

Circulating tumor cells as a prognostic marker for efficacy in the randomized phase III JO21095 trial in Japanese patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 Mendeley
Title
Circulating tumor cells as a prognostic marker for efficacy in the randomized phase III JO21095 trial in Japanese patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer
Published in
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, February 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10549-017-4138-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hiroji Iwata, Norikazu Masuda, Daigo Yamamoto, Yoshiaki Sagara, Nobuaki Sato, Yutaka Yamamoto, Mitsue Saito, Takashi Fujita, Shoji Oura, Junichiro Watanabe, Masami Tsukabe, Kazumi Horiguchi, Satoshi Hattori, Yoshimasa Matsuura, Katsumasa Kuroi

Abstract

Prognostic effects of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) have been reported in metastatic breast cancer (MBC). However, few phase III trials have investigated the potential role of CTCs in treatment selection. We explored potential relationships between CTCs, efficacy, and differential treatment effects. Patients with HER2-negative MBC were randomized to receive either concurrent capecitabine plus docetaxel (XT) or sequential single-agent docetaxel followed by single-agent capecitabine at progression (T → X). Blood samples were collected at baseline, on day 1 of cycles 2 and 3, and at progression. CTCs were counted using the CellSearch(®) System. The relationship between baseline CTC count and outcomes was investigated using a pre-defined threshold of 2 CTCs/7.5 mL. At screening, 44% of the 148 enrolled patients had positive CTC score. In multivariate analyses of pooled treatment arms, positive baseline CTC and triple-negative disease were strongly associated with worse progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Patients with positive CTC score at the baseline had worse OS, irrespective of change in CTC (decreased versus remaining positive) at cycle 2. The prognostic effect of baseline CTC count on OS appeared slightly less pronounced in XT-treated pts. compared with T → X. A baseline CTC count ≥2 CTCs/7.5 mL was associated with worse prognosis. However, some improvement in PFS and OS was shown with concurrent XT, thus baseline CTC could be a predictive marker. As the current trial was not designed to evaluate a change in chemotherapy according to on-treatment CTC changes, prospective investigation is required.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 39%
Unspecified 4 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 11%
Student > Postgraduate 1 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 6%
Other 3 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 39%
Unspecified 4 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Other 0 0%

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 11 February 2017.
All research outputs
#6,894,339
of 9,048,693 outputs
Outputs from Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
#1,451
of 2,077 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#222,739
of 310,982 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
#39
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,048,693 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,077 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 310,982 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.