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 |
Involved-field radiotherapy (IFRT) versus elective nodal irradiation (ENI) in combination with concurrent chemotherapy for 239 esophageal cancers: a single institutional retrospective study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Radiation Oncology, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13014-015-0482-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hideomi Yamashita, Ryousuke Takenaka, Mami Omori, Toshikazu Imae, Kae Okuma, Kuni Ohtomo, Keiichi Nakagawa |
| Abstract |
This retrospective study on early and locally advanced esophageal cancer was conducted to evaluate locoregional failure and its impact on survival by comparing involved field radiotherapy (IFRT) with elective nodal irradiation (ENI) in combination with concurrent chemotherapy. We assessed all patients with esophageal cancer of stages I-IV treated with definitive radiotherapy from June 2000 to March 2014. Between 2000 and 2011, ENI was used for all cases excluding high age cases. After Feb 2011, a prospective study about IFRT was started, and therefore IFRT was used since then for all cases. Concurrent chemotherapy regimen was nedaplatin (80 mg/m(2) at D1 and D29) and 5-fluorouracil (800 mg/m(2) at D1-4 and D29-32). Of the 239 consecutive patients assessed (120 ENI vs. 119 IFRT), 59 patients (24.7 %) had stage IV disease and all patients received at least one cycle of chemotherapy. The median follow-up time for survivors was 34.0 months. There were differences in 3-year local control (44.8 % vs. 55.5 %, p = 0.039), distant control (53.8 % vs. 69.9 %, p = 0.021) and overall survival (34.8 % vs. 51.6 %, p = 0.087) rates between ENI vs. IFRT, respectively. Patients treated with IFRT (8 %) demonstrated a significantly lower risk (p = 0.047) of high grade late toxicities than with ENI (16 %). IFRT did not increase the risk of initially uninvolved or isolated nodal failures (27.5 % in ENI and 13.4 % in IFRT). Nodal failure rates in clinically uninvolved nodal stations were not increased with IFRT when compared to ENI. IFRT also resulted in significantly decreased esophageal toxicity, suggesting that IFRT may allow for integration of concurrent systemic chemotherapy in a greater proportion of patients. Both tendencies of improved loco-regional progression-free survival and a significant increased overall survival rate favored the IFRT arm over the ENI arm in this study. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 | 1 | 50% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 31 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 23% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 16% |
| Researcher | 3 | 10% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 19% |
| Unknown | 3 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 61% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 10% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 3% |
| Materials Science | 1 | 3% |
| Engineering | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 6 | 19% |
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 14 August 2015.
All research outputs
#14,821,227
of 22,821,814 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#904
of 2,055 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#145,994
of 264,379 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#41
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,821,814 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,055 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 264,379 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 71 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.