↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

What we know about surgical therapy in early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer: a guide for the medical oncologist

Overview of attention for article published in Cancer Management and Research, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
20 Mendeley
Title
What we know about surgical therapy in early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer: a guide for the medical oncologist
Published in
Cancer Management and Research, July 2017
DOI 10.2147/cmar.s139253
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sassine Ghanem, Sandy El Bitar, Sami Hossri, Chanudi Weerasinghe, Jean Paul Atallah

Abstract

Lung cancer remains the leading cause of death in cancer patients. The gold standard for the treatment of early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer is lobectomy with mediastinal lymph-node dissection or systematic lymph-node sampling. The evidence behind this recommendation is based on the sole randomized controlled trial conducted to date, done by the Lung Cancer Study Group and published in 1995, which found a superiority for lobectomy over sublobar resection with regard to local recurrence rate and improved survival. The population studied at that time were medically fit patients at low risk for surgery with a stage IA non-small-cell lung carcinoma, ie, a solitary tumor less than 3 cm in size. In practice, however, thoracic surgeons have continued to push the limit of a more conservative surgical resection in this patient population. Since then, several retrospective studies have attempted to identify the ideal population to benefit from sublobar resection without it affecting survival or local recurrence. Several variables have been studied, including tumor size, patient age, surgical approach, histological and radiological properties, and optimal surgical resection margin, as well as promising prognostic biomarkers. In this review, we summarize the data available in the literature regarding the surgical approach to patients with stage IA non-small-cell lung cancer studying all the aforementioned variables.

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 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 20%
Student > Bachelor 3 15%
Professor 2 10%
Unspecified 1 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 8 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 35%
Unspecified 1 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 8 40%
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 15 July 2017.
All research outputs
#16,868,837
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Management and Research
#690
of 2,067 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#199,147
of 327,299 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Management and Research
#11
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,067 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 327,299 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.