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 |
[18F]FDG-PET/CT metabolic parameters as useful prognostic factors in cervical cancer patients treated with chemo-radiotherapy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Radiation Oncology, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13014-016-0614-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Fernanda G. Herrera, Thomas Breuneval, John O. Prior, Jean Bourhis, Mahmut Ozsahin |
| Abstract |
To compare the prognostic value of different anatomical and functional metabolic parameters determined using [(18)F]FDG-PET/CT with other clinical and pathological prognostic parameters in cervical cancer (CC). Thirty-eight patients treated with standard curative doses of chemo-radiotherapy (CRT) underwent pre- and post-therapy [(18)F]FDG-PET/CT. [(18)F]FDG-PET/CT parameters including mean tumor standardized uptake values (SUV), metabolic tumor volume (MTV) and tumor glycolytic volume (TGV) were measured before the start of CRT. The post-treatment tumor metabolic response was evaluated. These parameters were compared to other clinical prognostic factors. Survival curves were estimated by using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox regression analysis was performed to determine the independent contribution of each prognostic factor. After 37 months of median follow-up (range, 12-106), overall survival (OS) was 71 % [95 % confidence interval (CI), 54-88], disease-free survival (DFS) 61 % [95 % CI, 44-78] and loco-regional control (LRC) 76 % [95 % CI, 62-90]. In univariate analyses the [(18)F]FDG-PET/CT parameters unfavorably influencing OS, DFS and LRC were pre-treatment TGV-cutoff ≥562 (37 vs. 76 %, p = 0.01; 33 vs. 70 %, p = 0.002; and 55 vs. 83 %, p = 0.005, respectively), mean pre-treatment tumor SUV cutoff ≥5 (57 vs. 86 %, p = 0.03; 36 vs. 88 %, p = 0.004; 65 vs. 88 %, p = 0.04, respectively) and a partial tumor metabolic response after treatment (9 vs. 29 %, p = 0.0008; 0 vs. 83 %, p < 0.0001; 22 vs. 96 %, p < 0.0001, respectively). After multivariate analyses a partial tumor metabolic response after treatment remained as an independent prognostic factor unfavorably influencing DFS and LRC (RR 1:7.7, p < 0.0001, and RR 1:22.6, p = 0.0003, respectively) while the pre-treatment TGV-cutoff ≥562 negatively influenced OS and DFS (RR 1:2, p = 0.03, and RR 1:2.75, p = 0.05). Parameters capturing the pre-treatment glycolytic volume and metabolic activity of [(18)F]FDG-positive disease provide important prognostic information in patients with CC treated with CRT. The post-therapy [(18)F]FDG-PET/CT uptake (partial tumor metabolic response) is predictive of disease outcome. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 67% |
| Cyprus | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 34 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 12% |
| Other | 4 | 12% |
| Other | 7 | 21% |
| Unknown | 3 | 9% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 56% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 12% |
| Engineering | 2 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Chemical Engineering | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 5 | 15% |
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 18 March 2016.
All research outputs
#13,462,624
of 22,856,968 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#652
of 2,059 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#145,391
of 300,005 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#13
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,856,968 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 2,059 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 300,005 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.