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 |
Fast Helical Tomotherapy in a head and neck cancer planning study: is time priceless?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Radiation Oncology, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13014-015-0556-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Dirk Van Gestel, Geert De Kerf, Kristien Wouters, Wouter Crijns, Jan B. Vermorken, Vincent Gregoire, Dirk Verellen |
| Abstract |
The last few years, in radiotherapy there has been a growing focus on speed of treatment delivery (largely driven by economical and commercial interests). This study investigates the influence of treatment time on plan quality for helical tomotherapy (HT), using delivery times with Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT; Rapid Arc [RA]) as reference. In a previous study, double arc RA (Eclipse) and standard HT plans (TomoHD™) were created for five oropharyngeal cancer patients and reported according to ICRU 83 guidelines. By modifying the beam width from 2.5 to 5.0 cm, elevating the pitch and lowering the modulation factor, "TomoFast" (TF) plans were generated with treatment times equal to RA plans. To quantify the impact of TF's craniocaudal gradient, similar plans were generated on TomoEdge(TM) (TomoEdgeFast;TEF). The homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI), mean dose, Dnear-max (D2) and Dnear-min (D98) of the PTVs were analyzed as well as the mean dose, specific critical doses and volumes of 26 organs at risk (OARs). Data were analyzed using repeated measures ANOVA. With a mean treatment time of 3.05 min (RA), 2.89 min (TF) and 2.95 min (TEF), PTVtherapeutic coverage was more homogeneous with TF (HI.07;SE.01) and TEF (HI.08;SE.01) compared to RA (HI.10;SE.01), while PTVprophylactic was most homogeneous with RA. Mean doses to parotid glands were comparable for RA, TF, TEF: 25.62, 25.34, 23.09 Gy for contralateral and 32.02, 31.96, 30.01 Gy for ipsilateral glands, respectively. OARs' mean doses varied between different approaches not favoring a particular technique. TF's higher dose to OARs at the cranial-caudal edges of the PTVs and its higher integral dose, both due to the extended cranial-caudal gradient, seems to be solved by the new TomoEdge™ software. However, all these faster techniques lose part of standard TomoHD's OAR sparing capacity CONCLUSION: It is possible to treat oropharyngeal cancer patients using HT (TF/TEF) within time-frames observed for RA maintaining comparable target coverage and sparing of OARs. This study indicates that treatment time is not technology specific, rather an operator's decision on balancing efficiency and quality. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 3 | 60% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 3 | 60% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 40% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Malaysia | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 25 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 12% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 19% |
| Unknown | 3 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 35% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 5 | 19% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 15% |
| Psychology | 1 | 4% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 5 | 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 03 December 2016.
All research outputs
#13,452,391
of 22,836,570 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#652
of 2,057 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#187,858
of 390,595 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#13
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,836,570 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 390,595 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 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 74% of its contemporaries.