↓ Skip to main content

Regional hyperthermia of the abdomen, a pilot study towards the treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 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
Regional hyperthermia of the abdomen, a pilot study towards the treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis
Published in
Radiation Oncology, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13014-015-0451-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marcus Beck, Pirus Ghadjar, Mirko Weihrauch, Susen Burock, Volker Budach, Jacek Nadobny, Jalid Sehouli, Peter Wust

Abstract

Peritoneal carcinomatosis occurs in different cancer subtypes and is associated with a dismal prognosis. Some doubts remain whether the whole abdomen can be treated by regional hyperthermia, therefore we analyzed feasibility conducting a pilot study. A simulation of the abdominopelvic heat distribution in 11 patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis was done using the HyperPlan software and the SIGMA-60 and SIGMA-Eye applicators. Tissue-specific region-related electrical and thermal parameters were used to solve the Maxwell's equations and the bioheat-transfer equation. Three-dimensional specific absorption rate (SAR) distributions and, additionally, estimated region-related perfusion rates were used to solve the bioheat-transfer equation. The predicted SAR and temperature distributions were compared with minimally invasive measurements in pelvic reference points. In 11 patients (7 of them treated in the SIGMA-60 and 4 in the SIGMA-Eye applicator) the measured treatment variables (SAR, temperatures in the pelvic reference points) indicated that the heated volumes were higher for the SIGMA-Eye applicator. The mean computed abdominal SARs were less for the SIGMA-Eye (33 versus 44 W/kg). Nevertheless, the temperature distributions in the abdomen (peritoneal cavity) were more homogeneous in the SIGMA-Eye applicator as compared to the SIGMA-60 as indicated by higher values of T90 (mean 40.2 versus 38.2 °C) and T50 (mean 41.1 versus 40.2 °C), while the maximum temperatures were similar (in the range 41 to 43 °C). Even though the mean abdominal SAR was lower in the SIGMA-Eye, the heat distribution covered a larger volume of the abdomen (in particular the upper abdomen). For the SIGMA-60 applicator the achieved T90 appeared to be limited between 41 and 42 °C, for the SIGMA Eye applicator more effective T90 in the range 42 to 43 °C were obtained. Our results suggest that an adequate heating of the abdomen and therefore abdominal regional hyperthermia in PC patients appears feasible. The SIGMA-Eye applicator appears to be superior compared to the SIGMA-60 applicator for abdominal hyperthermia.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 29%
Student > Master 5 21%
Student > Bachelor 3 13%
Other 2 8%
Lecturer 2 8%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 3 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 25%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 13%
Engineering 3 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Other 4 17%
Unknown 6 25%

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 30 July 2015.
All research outputs
#2,691,771
of 5,422,321 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#478
of 955 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#94,072
of 189,586 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#40
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 5,422,321 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 955 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.0. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 189,586 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.