↓ Skip to main content

Whole breast and regional nodal irradiation in prone versus supine position in left sided breast cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Radiation Oncology, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Whole breast and regional nodal irradiation in prone versus supine position in left sided breast cancer
Published in
Radiation Oncology, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13014-017-0828-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pieter Deseyne, Bruno Speleers, Wilfried De Neve, Bert Boute, Leen Paelinck, Tom Van Hoof, Joris Van de Velde, Annick Van Greveling, Chris Monten, Giselle Post, Herman Depypere, Liv Veldeman

Abstract

Prone whole breast irradiation (WBI) leads to reduced heart and lung doses in breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant radiotherapy. In this feasibility trial, we investigated the prone position for whole breast + lymph node irradiation (WB + LNI). A new support device was developed for optimal target coverage, on which patients are positioned in a position resembling a phase from the crawl swimming technique (prone crawl position). Five left sided breast cancer patients were included and simulated in supine and prone position. For each patient, a treatment plan was made in prone and supine position for WB + LNI to the whole axilla and the unoperated part of the axilla. Patients served as their own controls for comparing dosimetry of target volumes and organs at risk (OAR) in prone versus in supine position. Target volume coverage differed only slightly between prone and supine position. Doses were significantly reduced (P < 0.05) in prone position for ipsilateral lung (Dmean, D2, V5, V10, V20, V30), contralateral lung (Dmean, D2), contralateral breast (Dmean, D2 and for total axillary WB + LNI also V5), thyroid (Dmean, D2, V5, V10, V20, V30), oesophagus (Dmean and for partial axillary WB + LNI also D2 and V5), skin (D2 and for partial axillary WB + LNI V105 and V107). There were no significant differences for heart and humeral head doses. Prone crawl position in WB + LNI allows for good breast and nodal target coverage with better sparing of ipsilateral lung, thyroid, contralateral breast, contralateral lung and oesophagus when compared to supine position. There is no difference in heart and humeral head doses. No trial registration was performed because there were no therapeutic interventions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users 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 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 14%
Researcher 6 12%
Student > Master 6 12%
Other 3 6%
Other 9 18%
Unknown 11 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 20%
Design 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 2%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 18 35%
Attention Score in Context

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 28 December 2017.
All research outputs
#14,349,470
of 22,977,819 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#821
of 2,069 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#175,196
of 313,455 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#9
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,977,819 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,069 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. 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 313,455 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.