↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Chronological changes in lung cancer surgery in a single Japanese institution

Overview of attention for article published in OncoTargets and therapy, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
9 Mendeley
Title
Chronological changes in lung cancer surgery in a single Japanese institution
Published in
OncoTargets and therapy, March 2017
DOI 10.2147/ott.s120556
Pubmed ID
Authors

Haruhiko Nakamura, Hiroki Sakai, Hiroyuki Kimura, Tomoyuki Miyazawa, Hideki Marushima, Hisashi Saji

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the chronological changes in epidemiological factors and surgical outcomes in patients with lung cancer who underwent surgery in a single Japanese institution. A clinicopathological database of patients with lung cancer who underwent surgery with curative intent from January 1974 to December 2014 was reviewed. The chronological changes in various factors, including patient's age, sex, histological type, tumor size, pathological stage (p-stage), surgical method, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, 30-day mortality, and postoperative overall survival (OS), were evaluated. A total of 1,616 patients were included. The numbers of resected patients, females, adenocarcinomas, p-stage IA patients, and age at the time of surgery increased with time, but tumor size decreased (all P<0.0001). Concerning surgical methods, the number of sublobar resections increased, but that of pneumonectomies decreased (P<0.0001). The mean operative time, intraoperative blood loss, and the postoperative 30-day mortality rate decreased (all P<0.0001). When the patients were divided into two groups (1974-2004 and 2005-2014), the 5-year OS rates for all patients and for p-stage IA patients improved from 44% to 79% and from 73% to 89%, respectively (all P<0.0001). The best 5-year OS rate was obtained for sublobar resection (73%), followed by lobectomy (60%), combined resection (22%), and pneumonectomy (21%; P<0.0001). Changes in epidemiological factors, a trend toward less invasive surgery, and a remarkably improved postoperative OS were confirmed, which demonstrated the increasingly important role of surgery in therapeutic strategies for lung cancer.

X Demographics

X Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 9 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor 2 22%
Researcher 2 22%
Student > Bachelor 1 11%
Unknown 4 44%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 33%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 11%
Unknown 4 44%
Attention Score in Context

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 07 March 2017.
All research outputs
#15,523,434
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from OncoTargets and therapy
#829
of 3,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#179,460
of 324,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age from OncoTargets and therapy
#41
of 91 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,016 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 324,443 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 91 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 54% of its contemporaries.