↓ Skip to main content

Which technique for radiation is most beneficial for patients with locally advanced cervical cancer? Intensity modulated proton therapy versus intensity modulated photon treatment, helical…

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
55 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 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
Which technique for radiation is most beneficial for patients with locally advanced cervical cancer? Intensity modulated proton therapy versus intensity modulated photon treatment, helical tomotherapy and volumetric arc therapy for primary radiation – an intraindividual comparison
Published in
Radiation Oncology, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13014-015-0402-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Simone Marnitz, Waldemar Wlodarczyk, Oliver Neumann, Christhardt Koehler, Mirko Weihrauch, Volker Budach, Luca Cozzi

Abstract

To compare highly sophisticated intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) delivered by either helical tomotherapy (HT), RapidArc (RA), IMRT with protons (IMPT) in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer. Twenty cervical cancer patients were irradiated using either conventional IMRT, VMAT or HT; ten received pelvic (PEL) and ten extended field irradiation (EFRT). The dose to the planning-target volume A (PTV_A: cervix, uterus, pelvic ± para-aortic lymph nodes) was 1.8/50.4 Gy. The SIB dose for the parametrium (PTV_B), was 2.12/59.36 Gy. MRI-guided brachytherapy was administered with 5 fractions up to 25 Gy. For EBRT, the lower target constraints were 95% of the prescribed dose in 95% of the target volume. The irradiated small bowel (SB) volumes were kept as low as possible. For every patient, target parameters as well as doses to the organs at risk (SB, bladder, rectum) were evaluated intra-individually for IMRT, HT, VMAT and IMPT. All techniques provided excellent target volume coverage, homogeneity, conformity. With IMPT, there was a significant reduction of the mean dose (Dmean) of the SB from 30.2 ± 4.0 Gy (IMRT); 27.6 ± 5.6 Gy (HT); 34.1 ± 7.0 (RA) to 18.6 ± 5.9 Gy (IMPT) for pelvic radiation and 26.3 ± 3.2 Gy (IMRT); 24.0 ± 4.1 (HT); 25.3 ± 3.7 (RA) to 13.8 ± 2.8 Gy (IMPT) for patients with EFRT, which corresponds to a reduction of 38-52% for the Dmean (SB). Futhermore, the low dose bath (V10Gy) to the small bowel was reduced by 50% with IMPT in comparison to all photon techniques. Furthermore, Dmean to the bladder and rectum was decresed by 7-9 Gy with IMPT in patents with pelvic radiation and EFRT. All modern techniques (were proved to be dosimetrically adequate regarding coverage, conformity and homogeneity of the target. Protons offered the best sparing of small bowel and rectum and therefore could contribute to a significant reduction of acute and late toxicity in cervical cancer treatment.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 75 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 18%
Other 10 13%
Student > Bachelor 8 11%
Student > Postgraduate 8 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 8%
Other 15 20%
Unknown 15 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 9%
Physics and Astronomy 6 8%
Arts and Humanities 2 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 1%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 21 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 31 May 2023.
All research outputs
#14,031,984
of 23,904,401 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#654
of 2,129 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,004
of 267,550 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#29
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,904,401 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,129 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 68% 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 267,550 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 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 51% of its contemporaries.