| Title |
Patient selection for cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC for the treatment of peritoneal metastases from colorectal cancer
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cancer Management and Research, June 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/cmar.s119569 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Geert A Simkens, Koen P Rovers, Simon W Nienhuijs, Ignace H de Hingh |
| Abstract |
Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is a viable option for selected patients with peritoneal metastases (PM) from colorectal origin, resulting in long-term survival and even cure in some cases. However, adequate patient selection for this treatment is currently one of the major challenges. The aim of this review is to provide a comprehensive overview of clinically relevant factors associated with overall survival. This may help to guide clinicians through the complex interplay of patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics to adequately select patients who benefit the most from this extensive surgical treatment. First, basic principles of colorectal PM and the CRS and HIPEC treatment will be discussed. According to available literature, especially extent of peritoneal disease, completeness of cytoreduction, and signet ring cell histology have great influence on the outcome after CRS and HIPEC. Other factors that seem to have a negative prognostic value are the presence of liver metastases and the absence of treatment with neo-adjuvant systemic therapy. Prognostic models combining the above-mentioned factors, such as the Colorectal Peritoneal Metastases Prognostic Surgical Score nomogram, may provide clinically relevant tools to use in everyday practice. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 67% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 78 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 13% |
| Researcher | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 10 | 13% |
| Unknown | 27 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 35 | 45% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 1% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 2 | 3% |
| Unknown | 34 | 44% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 02 April 2023.
All research outputs
#6,262,685
of 23,509,253 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Management and Research
#251
of 2,030 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#98,044
of 317,634 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Management and Research
#4
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,509,253 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,030 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 317,634 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 15 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 73% of its contemporaries.