↓ Skip to main content

Intensity-modulated versus 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy in the definitive treatment of esophageal cancer: comparison of outcomes and acute toxicity

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 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
Intensity-modulated versus 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy in the definitive treatment of esophageal cancer: comparison of outcomes and acute toxicity
Published in
Radiation Oncology, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13014-017-0863-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthias Felix Haefner, Kristin Lang, Vivek Verma, Stefan Alexander Koerber, Lorenz Uhlmann, Juergen Debus, Florian Sterzing

Abstract

Though the vast majority of seminal trials for locally advanced esophageal cancer (EC) utilized three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT), the advanced and highly conformal technology known as intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) can decrease doses to critical cardiopulmonary organs. To date, there have been no studies comparing both modalities as part of definitive chemoradiation (dCRT) for EC. Herein, we investigated local control and survival and evaluated clinical factors associated with these endpoints between cohorts. We retrospectively analyzed 93 patients (3DCRT n = 49, IMRT n = 44) who received dCRT at our institution between 2000 and 2012 with the histologic diagnosis of nonmetastatic EC, a Karnofsky performance status of ≥70, curative treatment intent, and receipt of concomitant CRT. Patients were excluded if receiving <50 Gy. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to evaluate the endpoints of local relapse rate (LR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Cox proportional hazards modeling addressed factors associated with outcomes with univariate and multivariate approaches. Rates of acute toxicities and basic dosimetric parameters were compared between 3DCRT and IMRT patients. Mean follow-up was 34.7 months. The 3-year LR was 28.6% in the 3DCRT group and 22.7% in the IMRT group (p = 0.620). Median PFS were 13.8 and 16.6 months, respectively (p = 0.448). Median OS were 18.4 and 42.0 months, respectively (p = 0.198). On univariate analysis, only cumulative radiation dose was associated with superior LR (hazard ratio (HR) 0.736; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.635 - 0.916, p = 0.004). Factors clearly affecting survival were not observed. When comparing 3DCRT- versus IMRT-based dCRT, no survival benefits were observed. However, we found a lower local recurrence rate in the IMRT group potentially owing to dose-escalation. Prospective data are needed to verify the presented results herein.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 19%
Student > Master 6 11%
Researcher 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Student > Postgraduate 5 9%
Other 9 17%
Unknown 13 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 6%
Engineering 2 4%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 18 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 20 August 2017.
All research outputs
#4,219,188
of 22,999,744 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#149
of 2,071 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,681
of 316,580 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#4
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,999,744 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,071 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 316,580 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.