↓ Skip to main content

Surgical management of lung, liver and brain metastases from gynecological cancers: a literature review

Overview of attention for article published in Gynecologic Oncology Research and Practice, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
13 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
Surgical management of lung, liver and brain metastases from gynecological cancers: a literature review
Published in
Gynecologic Oncology Research and Practice, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40661-016-0028-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Neville F. Hacker, Archana Rao

Abstract

The management of patients with recurrent gynecological malignancy is complex, and often contentious. While historically, patients with metastases in the lungs, liver or brain have been treated with palliative intent, surgery is proving to have an increasing role in the management of such patients. In this review article, the surgical management of lung, liver and brain metastases from gynecological cancers is examined. A search of the English language literature over the last 25 years was conducted using the Medline and PubMed databases. The results for management of metastases from the endometrium, ovary and cervix to the lung, brain and liver show that surprisingly good long-term survival results can be achieved for resection of metastases from all three organs. Patient selection is critical, and surgery is often used in conjunction with other treatment modalities. From this review, it is apparent that surgery should play an increasing role in the management of patients with parenchymal metastases from gynecological cancers. The surgery should ideally be performed in high volume, tertiary centers where there is a committed multi-disciplinary team with the necessary infrastructure to achieve the best possible outcomes in terms of both survival and morbidity.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 31%
Other 3 23%
Student > Bachelor 1 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 8%
Researcher 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Unknown 2 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 62%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 8%
Unknown 4 31%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 23 June 2016.
All research outputs
#13,245,850
of 16,669,654 outputs
Outputs from Gynecologic Oncology Research and Practice
#26
of 31 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#186,108
of 265,969 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Gynecologic Oncology Research and Practice
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,669,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. This one scored the same or higher as 5 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 265,969 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them