↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Reducing rectal injury in men receiving prostate cancer radiation therapy: current perspectives

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (62nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
Title
Reducing rectal injury in men receiving prostate cancer radiation therapy: current perspectives
Published in
Cancer Management and Research, July 2017
DOI 10.2147/cmar.s118781
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicholas A Serrano, Noah S Kalman, Mitchell S Anscher

Abstract

Dose escalation is now the standard of care for the treatment of prostate cancer with radiation therapy. However, the rectum tends to be the dose-limiting structure when treating prostate cancer, given its close proximity. Early and late toxicities can occur when the rectum receives large doses of radiation therapy. New technologies allow for prevention of these toxicities. In this review, we examine the evidence that supports various dose constraints employed to prevent these rectal injuries from occurring. We also examine the use of intensity-modulated radiation therapy and how this compares to older radiation therapy techniques that allow for further sparing of the rectum during a radiation therapy course. We then review the literature on endorectal balloons and the effects of their daily use throughout a radiation therapy course. Tissue spacers are now being investigated in greater detail; these devices are injected into the rectoprostatic fascia to physically increase the distance between the prostate and the anterior rectal wall. Last, we review the use of systemic drugs, specifically statin medications and antihypertensives, as well as their impact on rectal toxicity.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 6 15%
Researcher 6 15%
Student > Bachelor 5 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 10%
Other 9 23%
Unknown 5 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 33%
Physics and Astronomy 7 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 8%
Chemistry 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 10 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 10 September 2017.
All research outputs
#5,957,529
of 11,741,833 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Management and Research
#86
of 323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,681
of 267,989 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Management and Research
#3
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,741,833 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 323 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 73% 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 267,989 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 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 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 72% of its contemporaries.