↓ Skip to main content

Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) vs Helical Tomotherapy (HT) in Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for Patients with Anal Canal Carcinoma (ACC): an analysis of dose distribution and toxicities

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
26 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 Radiotherapy (IMRT) vs Helical Tomotherapy (HT) in Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for Patients with Anal Canal Carcinoma (ACC): an analysis of dose distribution and toxicities
Published in
Radiation Oncology, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13014-015-0398-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rosanna Yeung, Yarrow McConnell, Heather Warkentin, Darren Graham, Brad Warkentin, Kurian Joseph, Corinne M Doll

Abstract

Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and helical tomotherapy (HT) have been adopted for radiotherapy treatment of anal canal carcinoma (ACC) due to better conformality, dose homogeneity and normal-tissue sparing compared to 3D-CRT. To date, only one published study compares dosimetric parameters of IMRT vs HT in ACC, but there are no published data comparing toxicities. Our objectives were to compare dosimetry and toxicities between these modalities. This is a retrospective study of 35 ACC patients treated with radical chemoradiotherapy at two tertiary cancer institutions from 2008-2010. The use of IMRT vs HT was primarily based on center availability. The majority of patients received fluorouracil (5-FU) and 1-2 cycles of mitomycin C (MMC); 2 received 5-FU and cisplatin. Primary tumor and elective nodes were prescribed to ≥54Gy and ≥45Gy, respectively. Patients were grouped into two cohorts: IMRT vs HT. The primary endpoint was a dosimetric comparison between the cohorts; the secondary endpoint was comparison of toxicities. 18 patients were treated with IMRT and 17 with HT. Most IMRT patients received 5-FU and 1 MMC cycle, while most HT patients received 2 MMC cycles (p < 0.01), based on center policy. HT achieved more homogenous coverage of the primary tumor (HT homogeneity and uniformity index 0.14 and 1.02 vs 0.29 and 1.06 for IMRT, p = 0.01 and p < 0.01). Elective nodal coverage did not differ. IMRT achieved better bladder, femoral head and peritoneal space sparing (V30 and V40, p ≤ 0.01), and lower mean skin dose (p < 0.01). HT delivered lower bone marrow (V10, p < 0.01) and external genitalia dose (V20 and V30, p < 0.01). Grade 2+ hematological and non-hematological toxicities were similar. Febrile neutropenia and unscheduled treatment breaks did not differ (both p = 0.13), nor did 3-year overall and disease-free survival (p = 0.13, p = 0.68). Chemoradiotherapy treatment of ACC using IMRT vs HT results in differences in dose homogenity and normal-tissue sparing, but no significant differences in toxicities.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 23%
Student > Postgraduate 4 15%
Student > Master 3 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 12%
Student > Bachelor 3 12%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 3 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 23%
Physics and Astronomy 2 8%
Unspecified 1 4%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 5 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 10 December 2020.
All research outputs
#7,212,814
of 22,799,071 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#390
of 2,054 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,526
of 264,854 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#18
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,799,071 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th 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 80% 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 264,854 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 66% 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 70% of its contemporaries.