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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Assessing brain volume changes in older women with breast cancer receiving adjuvant chemotherapy: a brain magnetic resonance imaging pilot study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Breast Cancer Research, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13058-018-0965-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Bihong T. Chen, Sean K. Sethi, Taihao Jin, Sunita K. Patel, Ningrong Ye, Can-Lan Sun, Russell C. Rockne, E. Mark Haacke, James C. Root, Andrew J. Saykin, Tim A. Ahles, Andrei I. Holodny, Neal Prakash, Joanne Mortimer, James Waisman, Yuan Yuan, George Somlo, Daneng Li, Richard Yang, Heidi Tan, Vani Katheria, Rachel Morrison, Arti Hurria |
| Abstract |
Cognitive decline is among the most feared treatment-related outcomes of older adults with cancer. The majority of older patients with breast cancer self-report cognitive problems during and after chemotherapy. Prior neuroimaging research has been performed mostly in younger patients with cancer. The purpose of this study was to evaluate longitudinal changes in brain volumes and cognition in older women with breast cancer receiving adjuvant chemotherapy. Women aged ≥ 60 years with stage I-III breast cancer receiving adjuvant chemotherapy and age-matched and sex-matched healthy controls were enrolled. All participants underwent neuropsychological testing with the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) Toolbox for Cognition and brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) prior to chemotherapy, and again around one month after the last infusion of chemotherapy. Brain volumes were measured using Neuroreader™ software. Longitudinal changes in brain volumes and neuropsychological scores were analyzed utilizing linear mixed models. A total of 16 patients with breast cancer (mean age 67.0, SD 5.39 years) and 14 age-matched and sex-matched healthy controls (mean age 67.8, SD 5.24 years) were included: 7 patients received docetaxel and cyclophosphamide (TC) and 9 received chemotherapy regimens other than TC (non-TC). There were no significant differences in segmented brain volumes between the healthy control group and the chemotherapy group pre-chemotherapy (p > 0.05). Exploratory hypothesis generating analyses focusing on the effect of the chemotherapy regimen demonstrated that the TC group had greater volume reduction in the temporal lobe (change = - 0.26) compared to the non-TC group (change = 0.04, p for interaction = 0.02) and healthy controls (change = 0.08, p for interaction = 0.004). Similarly, the TC group had a decrease in oral reading recognition scores (change = - 6.94) compared to the non-TC group (change = - 1.21, p for interaction = 0.07) and healthy controls (change = 0.09, p for interaction = 0.02). There were no significant differences in segmented brain volumes between the healthy control group and the chemotherapy group; however, exploratory analyses demonstrated a reduction in both temporal lobe volume and oral reading recognition scores among patients on the TC regimen. These results suggest that different chemotherapy regimens may have differential effects on brain volume and cognition. Future, larger studies focusing on older adults with cancer on different treatment regimens are needed to confirm these findings. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01992432 . Registered on 25 November 2013. Retrospectively registered. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 80% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 75 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 9% |
| Other | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 12 | 16% |
| Unknown | 30 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 10 | 13% |
| Neuroscience | 7 | 9% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 7 | 9% |
| Unknown | 36 | 48% |
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 08 May 2018.
All research outputs
#7,359,319
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Breast Cancer Research
#849
of 2,054 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#119,545
of 338,899 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Breast Cancer Research
#8
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,054 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 338,899 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 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 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 72% of its contemporaries.