↓ Skip to main content

MEDIASTinal staging of non-small cell lung cancer by endobronchial and endoscopic ultrasonography with or without additional surgical mediastinoscopy (MEDIASTrial): study protocol of a multicenter…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Surgery, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (60th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
96 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
MEDIASTinal staging of non-small cell lung cancer by endobronchial and endoscopic ultrasonography with or without additional surgical mediastinoscopy (MEDIASTrial): study protocol of a multicenter randomised controlled trial
Published in
BMC Surgery, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12893-018-0359-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jelle E. Bousema, Marcel G. W. Dijkgraaf, Nicole E. Papen-Botterhuis, Hermien W. Schreurs, Jos G. Maessen, Erik H. van der Heijden, Willem H. Steup, Jerry Braun, Valentin J. J. M. Noyez, Fieke Hoeijmakers, Naomi Beck, Martijn van Dorp, Niels J. M. Claessens, Birgitta I. Hiddinga, Johannes M. A. Daniels, David J. Heineman, Harmen R. Zandbergen, Ad F. T. M. Verhagen, Paul E. van Schil, Jouke T. Annema, Frank J. C. van den Broek

Abstract

In case of suspicious lymph nodes on computed tomography (CT) or fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET), advanced tumour size or central tumour location in patients with suspected non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), Dutch and European guidelines recommend mediastinal staging by endosonography (endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)) with sampling of mediastinal lymph nodes. If biopsy results from endosonography turn out negative, additional surgical staging of the mediastinum by mediastinoscopy is advised to prevent unnecessary lung resection due to false negative endosonography findings. We hypothesize that omitting mediastinoscopy after negative endosonography in mediastinal staging of NSCLC does not result in an unacceptable percentage of unforeseen N2 disease at surgical resection. In addition, omitting mediastinoscopy comprises no extra waiting time until definite surgery, omits one extra general anaesthesia and hospital admission, and may be associated with lower morbidity and comparable survival. Therefore, this strategy may reduce health care costs and increase quality of life. The aim of this study is to compare the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of mediastinal staging strategies including and excluding mediastinoscopy. This study is a multicenter parallel randomized non-inferiority trial comparing two diagnostic strategies (with or without mediastinoscopy) for mediastinal staging in 360 patients with suspected resectable NSCLC. Patients are eligible for inclusion when they underwent systematic endosonography to evaluate mediastinal lymph nodes including tissue sampling with negative endosonography results. Patients will not be eligible for inclusion when PET/CT demonstrates 'bulky N2-N3' disease or the combination of a highly suspicious as well as irresectable mediastinal lymph node. Primary outcome measure for non-inferiority is the proportion of patients with unforeseen N2 disease at surgery. Secondary outcome measures are hospitalization, morbidity, overall 2-year survival, quality of life, cost-effectiveness and cost-utility. Patients will be followed up 2 years after start of treatment. Results of the MEDIASTrial will have immediate impact on national and international guidelines, which are accessible to public, possibly reducing mediastinoscopy as a commonly performed invasive procedure for NSCLC staging and diminishing variation in clinical practice. The trial is registered at the Netherlands Trial Register on July 6th, 2017 ( NTR 6528 ).

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 96 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 14%
Student > Master 9 9%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 6%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 41 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 4%
Engineering 2 2%
Social Sciences 2 2%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 46 48%
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 30 January 2019.
All research outputs
#7,501,820
of 23,058,939 outputs
Outputs from BMC Surgery
#152
of 1,339 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#129,645
of 329,133 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Surgery
#1
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,058,939 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 1,339 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 329,133 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 60% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.