↓ Skip to main content

Infections after fiducial marker implantation for prostate radiotherapy: are we underestimating the risks?

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 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
Infections after fiducial marker implantation for prostate radiotherapy: are we underestimating the risks?
Published in
Radiation Oncology, February 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13014-015-0347-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jasmin Loh, Katie Baker, Swetha Sridharan, Peter Greer, Chris Wratten, Anne Capp, Sarah Gallagher, Jarad Martin

Abstract

The use of gold fiducial markers (FM) for prostate image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) is standard practice. Published literature suggests low rates of serious infection following this procedure of 0-1.3%, but this may be an underestimate. We aim to report on the infection incidence and severity associated with the use of transrectally implanted intraprostatic gold FM. Three hundred and fifty-nine patients who underwent transrectal FM insertion between January 2012 and December 2013 were assessed retrospectively via a self-reported questionnaire. All had standard oral fluoroquinolone antibiotic prophylaxis. The patients were asked about infective symptoms and the treatment received including antibiotics and/or related hospital admissions. Potential infective events were confirmed through medical records. 285 patients (79.4%) completed the questionnaire. 77 (27.0%) patients experienced increased urinary frequency and dysuria, and 33 patients (11.6%) reported episodes of chills and fevers after the procedure. 22 patients (7.7%) reported receiving antibiotics for urinary infection and eight patients (2.8%) reported hospital admission for urosepsis related to the procedure. The overall rate of symptomatic infection with FM implantation in this study is 7.7%, with one third requiring hospital admission. This exceeds the reported rates in other FM implantation series, but is in keeping with the larger prostate biopsy literature. Given the higher than expected complication rate, a risk-adaptive approach may be helpful. Where higher accuracy is important such as stereotactic prostate radiotherapy, the benefits of FM may still outweigh the risks. For others, a non-invasive approach for prostate IGRT such as cone-beam CT could be considered.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 1%
Belgium 1 1%
Unknown 65 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 12%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Other 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 9%
Other 12 18%
Unknown 13 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 49%
Physics and Astronomy 5 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Computer Science 2 3%
Mathematics 1 1%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 18 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 22 February 2015.
All research outputs
#6,143,130
of 22,789,566 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#271
of 2,054 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,244
of 358,519 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#10
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,789,566 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,054 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 358,519 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 63 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.