↓ Skip to main content

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy versus three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy with concurrent nedaplatin-based chemotherapy after radical hysterectomy for uterine cervical cancer…

Overview of attention for article published in Radiation Oncology, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 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
Intensity-modulated radiation therapy versus three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy with concurrent nedaplatin-based chemotherapy after radical hysterectomy for uterine cervical cancer: comparison of outcomes, complications, and dose-volume histogram parameters
Published in
Radiation Oncology, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13014-015-0486-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fumiaki Isohashi, Seiji Mabuchi, Yasuo Yoshioka, Yuji Seo, Osamu Suzuki, Keisuke Tamari, Michiko Yamashita, Hikari Unno, Yasuto Kinose, Katsumi Kozasa, Iori Sumida, Yuki Otani, Tadashi Kimura, Kazuhiko Ogawa

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to report our clinical outcomes using intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for adjuvant treatment of cervical cancer, compared with three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT), in terms of tumor control, complications and dose-volume histogram (DVH) parameters. Between March 2008 and February 2014, 62 patients were treated with concurrent nedaplatin-based chemotherapy and whole-pelvic external beam radiation therapy (RT). Of these patients, 32 (52 %) received 3DCRT and 30 (48 %) received IMRT. The median follow-up periods were 40 months (range 2-74 months). The 3-year overall survival rate (OS), locoregional control rate (LRC) and progression-free survival rate (PFS) were 92, 95 and 92 % in the IMRT group, and 85, 82 and 70 % in the 3DCRT group, respectively. A comparison of OS, LRC and PFS showed no significant differences between IMRT and 3DCRT. The 3-year cumulative incidences of grade 2 or higher chronic gastrointestinal (GI) complications were significantly lower with IMRT compared to 3DCRT (3 % vs. 45 %, p < .02) and in patients with V40 of the small bowel loops of ≤340 mL compared to those with >340 mL (3 % vs. 45 %, p < .001). Patients treated with IMRT had a higher incidence of grade 3 acute hematologic complications (p < .05). V40 and V45 of the small bowel loops or bowel bag were predictive for development of both acute and chronic GI complications. Our results suggest that IMRT for adjuvant treatment of cervical cancer is useful for decreasing GI complications without worsening outcomes.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 3%
India 1 3%
Unknown 33 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Student > Postgraduate 4 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Student > Master 3 9%
Other 6 17%
Unknown 10 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Physics and Astronomy 1 3%
Neuroscience 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 15 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 26 August 2015.
All research outputs
#13,211,650
of 22,824,164 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#599
of 2,056 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#122,751
of 267,539 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#21
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,824,164 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,056 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 267,539 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 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 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 63% of its contemporaries.