↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of breast simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) radiotherapy techniques

Overview of attention for article published in Radiation Oncology, July 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 (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 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
Comparison of breast simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) radiotherapy techniques
Published in
Radiation Oncology, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13014-015-0452-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Moamen M.O.M. Aly, Gerhard Glatting, Lennart Jahnke, Frederik Wenz, Yasser Abo-Madyan

Abstract

To dosimetrically evaluate different breast SIB techniques with respect to target coverage and organs at risk (OARs) doses. Four IMRT techniques were compared in 12 patients. Three techniques employ tangential whole breast irradiation with either two coplanar fields (T-2F), or four non-coplanar fields (T-NC), or one Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (T-VMAT) for the boost volume. The fourth technique is a fully-modulated VMAT technique (f-VMAT). Dosimetric parameters were compared for the boost and breast target volumes as well as OARs. Delivery efficiency was analysed based on number of monitor units (MUs) and estimated delivery time. T-VMAT and f-VMAT ranked highest with respect to integral assessment of boost and breast treatment quality measures. T-VMAT significantly outperformed f-VMAT with respect to ipsi-lateral lung and left-sided patients' heart volumes ≥ 5 Gy (35 % ± 5 % vs. 52 % ± 6 % and 11 % ± 5 % vs. 22 % ± 6 %, respectively). f-VMAT significantly outperformed T-VMAT with respect to ipsi-lateral lung volume ≥ 20 Gy (13 % ± 2 % vs. 15 % ± 3 %) and heart volume ≥ 30 Gy in left breast cancer (0 % ± 0 % vs. 1 % ± 1 %). T-VMAT and f-VMAT needed 442 ± 58 and 1016 ± 152 MUs, respectively. The hybrid T-VMAT is considered the technique of choice due to its balance of quality, efficiency and dose to OARs.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 2%
Slovenia 1 2%
Unknown 58 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 12 20%
Researcher 12 20%
Student > Bachelor 9 15%
Student > Postgraduate 7 12%
Student > Master 5 8%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 10 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 40%
Physics and Astronomy 15 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Engineering 2 3%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 13 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 11 July 2015.
All research outputs
#14,462,927
of 23,267,128 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#807
of 2,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#135,461
of 263,240 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#27
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,267,128 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,090 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 263,240 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 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 58% of its contemporaries.