↓ Skip to main content

Current state of the art of regional hyperthermia treatment planning: a review

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
132 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
144 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
Current state of the art of regional hyperthermia treatment planning: a review
Published in
Radiation Oncology, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13014-015-0503-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

HP Kok, P. Wust, PR Stauffer, F Bardati, GC van Rhoon, J. Crezee

Abstract

Locoregional hyperthermia, i.e. increasing the tumor temperature to 40-45 °C using an external heating device, is a very effective radio and chemosensitizer, which significantly improves clinical outcome. There is a clear thermal dose-effect relation, but the pursued optimal thermal dose of 43 °C for 1 h can often not be realized due to treatment limiting hot spots in normal tissue. Modern heating devices have a large number of independent antennas, which provides flexible power steering to optimize tumor heating and minimize hot spots, but manual selection of optimal settings is difficult. Treatment planning is a very valuable tool to improve locoregional heating. This paper reviews the developments in treatment planning software for tissue segmentation, electromagnetic field calculations, thermal modeling and optimization techniques. Over the last decade, simulation tools have become more advanced. On-line use has become possible by implementing algorithms on the graphical processing unit, which allows real-time computations. The number of applications using treatment planning is increasing rapidly and moving on from retrospective analyses towards assisting prospective clinical treatment strategies. Some clinically relevant applications will be discussed.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 1%
Poland 1 <1%
Unknown 141 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 17%
Student > Bachelor 24 17%
Researcher 15 10%
Student > Master 15 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 4%
Other 28 19%
Unknown 31 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 32 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 22 15%
Physics and Astronomy 14 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 4%
Other 21 15%
Unknown 41 28%
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 17 September 2015.
All research outputs
#14,825,310
of 22,828,180 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#904
of 2,057 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#150,256
of 272,396 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#35
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,828,180 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 2,057 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 272,396 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 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.