↓ Skip to main content

Prognostic indicators in peritoneal carcinomatosis from gastrointestinal cancer

Overview of attention for article published in International Seminars in Surgical Oncology, February 2005
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Readers on

mendeley
143 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
Prognostic indicators in peritoneal carcinomatosis from gastrointestinal cancer
Published in
International Seminars in Surgical Oncology, February 2005
DOI 10.1186/1477-7800-2-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rhonda L Harmon, Paul H Sugarbaker

Abstract

Peritoneal carcinomatosis from gastrointestinal cancer has new treatment options for surgical management. The approach uses cytoreductive surgery which combines peritonectomy and visceral resection in an effort to remove all visible cancer within the abdomen and pelvis. Then the peritoneal cavity is flooded with chemotherapy solution in an attempt to eradicate residual disease. In order to select patients for this approach the quantitative prognostic indicators for carcinomatosis were reviewed, compared and contrasted. Prognostic indicators to be used to select patients for this aggressive approach at the initiation of surgery and after completion of cytoreduction were studied. Four quantitative assessments to be used at the time of abdominal exploration were the Gilly staging, Japanese gastric cancer P score, peritoneal cancer index (PCI), and the simplified peritoneal cancer index (SPCI). All have value with the PCI being the most validated and most precise. Preoperative assessments include the tumor histopathology and the prior surgical score. The completeness of cytoreduction score is an assessment of residual disease after a maximal surgical effort. An opportunity for long-term survival following treatment for carcinomatosis requires a complete cytoreduction in all reports for gastrointestinal cancer. Quantitative prognostic indicators need to be knowledgeably employed when patients with carcinomatosis are being treated. Improved patient selection with greater benefit and reduced morbidity and mortality should result.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 143 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 2 1%
Canada 1 <1%
Egypt 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Croatia 1 <1%
Unknown 136 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 24 17%
Other 15 10%
Student > Postgraduate 15 10%
Student > Master 13 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 8%
Other 30 21%
Unknown 34 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 83 58%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 2%
Computer Science 2 1%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 1%
Other 8 6%
Unknown 41 29%
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 03 December 2019.
All research outputs
#8,533,995
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from International Seminars in Surgical Oncology
#10
of 25 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,997
of 157,836 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Seminars in Surgical Oncology
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 25 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one scored the same or higher as 15 of them.
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 157,836 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.