↓ Skip to main content

Neoadjuvant versus adjuvant treatment: which one is better for resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma?

Overview of attention for article published in World Journal of Surgical Oncology, August 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
62 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 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
Neoadjuvant versus adjuvant treatment: which one is better for resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma?
Published in
World Journal of Surgical Oncology, August 2012
DOI 10.1186/1477-7819-10-173
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yaping Xu, Xinmin Yu, Qixun Chen, Weimin Mao

Abstract

Esophageal cancer is the eighth most common cancer worldwide, and especially in some areas of China is the fourth most common cause of death and is of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) histology in >90% of cases. Surgery alone was the mainstay of therapeutic intervention in the past, but high rates of local and systemic failure have prompted investigation into multidisciplinary management. In this review, we discuss the key issues raised by the recent availability of esophageal SCC treatment with the addition of chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and chemoradiotherapy to the surgical management of resectable disease and discuss how clinical trials and meta-analysis inform current clinical practice. None of the randomized trials that compared neoadjuvant radiotherapy or chemotherapy with surgery alone in esophageal SCC has demonstrated an increase in overall survival in those patients treated with neoadjuvant radiotherapy or chemotherapy. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy has been accepted recently for esophageal cancer because such a regimen offers great opportunity for margin negative resection, improved loco-regional control and increased survival. The majority of the available evidence currently reveals that only selected locally advanced esophageal SCC are more likely to benefit from the adjuvant therapy. The focus of future trials should be on identification of the optimum regimen and should aim to minimize treatment toxicities and effect on quality of life, as well as attempt to identify and select those patients most likely to benefit from specific treatment options.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 2%
China 1 2%
Unknown 49 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 20%
Researcher 7 14%
Student > Master 6 12%
Other 5 10%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Other 13 25%
Unknown 6 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 49%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 6%
Psychology 3 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 9 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 21 April 2022.
All research outputs
#6,414,403
of 21,235,767 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Surgical Oncology
#182
of 1,879 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,875
of 147,642 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Surgical Oncology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,235,767 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,879 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 147,642 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 68% of its contemporaries.
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