↓ Skip to main content

Parotid gland shrinkage during IMRT predicts the time to Xerostomia resolution

Overview of attention for article published in Radiation Oncology, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 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
Parotid gland shrinkage during IMRT predicts the time to Xerostomia resolution
Published in
Radiation Oncology, January 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13014-015-0331-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Giuseppe Sanguineti, Francesco Ricchetti, Binbin Wu, Todd McNutt, Claudio Fiorino

Abstract

PurposeTo assess the impact of mid-treatment parotid gland shrinkage on long term xerostomia during IMRT for oropharyngeal SCC.Methods and materialsAll patients treated with IMRT at a single Institution from November 2007 to June 2010 and undergoing weekly CT scans were selected. Parotid glands were contoured retrospectively on the mid treatment CT scan. For each parotid gland, the percent change relative to the planning volume was calculated and combined as weighted average. Patients were considered to be xerostomic if developed GR2+ dry mouth according to CTCAE v3.0. Predictors of the time to xerostomia resolution or downgrade to 1 were investigated at both uni- and multivariate analysis.Results85 patients were selected. With a median follow up of 35.8 months (range: 2.4-62.6 months), the actuarial rate of xerostomia is 26.2% (SD: 5.3%) and 15.9% (SD: 5.3%) at 2 and 3 yrs, respectively. At multivariate analysis, mid-treatment shrink along with weighted average mean parotid dose at planning and body mass index are independent predictors of the time to xerostomia resolution. Patients were pooled in 4 groups based on median values of both mid-treatment shrink (cut-off: 19.6%) and mean WA parotid pl-D (cut-off: 35.7 Gy). Patients with a higher than median parotid dose at planning and who showed poor shrinkage at mid treatment are the ones with the outcome significantly worse (3-yr rate of xerostomia¿¿¿50%) than the other three subgroups (3-yr rate of xerostomia¿¿¿10%).ConclusionFor a given planned dose, patients whose parotids significantly shrink during IMRT are less likely to be long-term supplemental fluids dependent.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
New Zealand 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 45 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 23%
Researcher 8 17%
Student > Postgraduate 5 11%
Other 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 9 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 40%
Physics and Astronomy 6 13%
Engineering 4 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 12 26%
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 18 January 2015.
All research outputs
#18,389,490
of 22,778,347 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#1,410
of 2,052 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#255,856
of 352,126 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#66
of 87 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,778,347 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,052 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 352,126 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 87 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.