↓ Skip to main content

Michigan Publishing

Article Metrics

Adjuvant Chemotherapy Guided by a 21-Gene Expression Assay in Breast Cancer

Overview of attention for article published in New England Journal of Medicine, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#16 of 24,465)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
66 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
649 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Adjuvant Chemotherapy Guided by a 21-Gene Expression Assay in Breast Cancer
Published in
New England Journal of Medicine, July 2018
DOI 10.1056/nejmoa1804710
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joseph A. Sparano, Robert J. Gray, Della F. Makower, Kathleen I. Pritchard, Kathy S. Albain, Daniel F. Hayes, Charles E. Geyer, Elizabeth C. Dees, Matthew P. Goetz, John A. Olson, Tracy Lively, Sunil S. Badve, Thomas J. Saphner, Lynne I. Wagner, Timothy J. Whelan, Matthew J. Ellis, Soonmyung Paik, William C. Wood, Peter M. Ravdin, Maccon M. Keane, Henry L. Gomez Moreno, Pavan S. Reddy, Timothy F. Goggins, Ingrid A. Mayer, Adam M. Brufsky, Deborah L. Toppmeyer, Virginia G. Kaklamani, Jeffrey L. Berenberg, Jeffrey Abrams, George W. Sledge

Abstract

Background The recurrence score based on the 21-gene breast cancer assay predicts chemotherapy benefit if it is high and a low risk of recurrence in the absence of chemotherapy if it is low; however, there is uncertainty about the benefit of chemotherapy for most patients, who have a midrange score. Methods We performed a prospective trial involving 10,273 women with hormone-receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative, axillary node-negative breast cancer. Of the 9719 eligible patients with follow-up information, 6711 (69%) had a midrange recurrence score of 11 to 25 and were randomly assigned to receive either chemoendocrine therapy or endocrine therapy alone. The trial was designed to show noninferiority of endocrine therapy alone for invasive disease-free survival (defined as freedom from invasive disease recurrence, second primary cancer, or death). Results Endocrine therapy was noninferior to chemoendocrine therapy in the analysis of invasive disease-free survival (hazard ratio for invasive disease recurrence, second primary cancer, or death [endocrine vs. chemoendocrine therapy], 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.94 to 1.24; P=0.26). At 9 years, the two treatment groups had similar rates of invasive disease-free survival (83.3% in the endocrine-therapy group and 84.3% in the chemoendocrine-therapy group), freedom from disease recurrence at a distant site (94.5% and 95.0%) or at a distant or local-regional site (92.2% and 92.9%), and overall survival (93.9% and 93.8%). The chemotherapy benefit for invasive disease-free survival varied with the combination of recurrence score and age (P=0.004), with some benefit of chemotherapy found in women 50 years of age or younger with a recurrence score of 16 to 25. Conclusions Adjuvant endocrine therapy and chemoendocrine therapy had similar efficacy in women with hormone-receptor-positive, HER2-negative, axillary node-negative breast cancer who had a midrange 21-gene recurrence score, although some benefit of chemotherapy was found in some women 50 years of age or younger. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others; TAILORx ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00310180 .).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 932 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 649 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 649 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 <1%
Other 2 <1%
Lecturer 1 <1%
Student > Master 1 <1%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 <1%
Other 3 <1%
Unknown 638 98%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 <1%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 <1%
Unspecified 1 <1%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 <1%
Arts and Humanities 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 638 98%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2658. 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 December 2018.
All research outputs
#278
of 12,288,060 outputs
Outputs from New England Journal of Medicine
#16
of 24,465 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11
of 263,652 outputs
Outputs of similar age from New England Journal of Medicine
#3
of 261 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,288,060 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 24,465 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 58.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 263,652 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 261 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.