↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Vaginal cuff brachytherapy in endometrial cancer – a technically easy treatment?

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
6 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
Title
Vaginal cuff brachytherapy in endometrial cancer – a technically easy treatment?
Published in
Cancer Management and Research, August 2017
DOI 10.2147/cmar.s119125
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sebastià Sabater, Ignacio Andres, Veronica Lopez-Honrubia, Roberto Berenguer, Marimar Sevillano, Esther Jimenez-Jimenez, Angeles Rovirosa, Meritxell Arenas

Abstract

Endometrial cancer (EC) is one of the most common gynecological cancers among women in the developed countries. Vaginal cuff is the main location of relapses after a curative surgical procedure and postoperative radiation therapy have proven to diminish it. Nevertheless, these results have not translated into better survival results. The preeminent place of vaginal cuff brachytherapy (VCB) in the postoperative treatment of high- to intermediate-risk EC was given by the PORTEC-2 trial, which demonstrated a similar reduction in relapses with VCB than with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), but VCB induced less late toxicity. As a result of this trial, the use of VCB has increased in clinical practice at the expense of EBRT. A majority of the clinical reviews of VCB usually address the risk categories and patient selection but pay little attention to technical aspects of the VCB procedure. Our review aimed to address both aspects. First of all, we described the risk groups, which guide patient selection for VCB in clinical practice. Then, we depicted several technical aspects that might influence dose deposition and toxicity. Bladder distension and rectal distension as well as applicator position or patient position are some of those variables that we reviewed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 42 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 17%
Student > Master 6 14%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Student > Postgraduate 4 10%
Other 3 7%
Other 7 17%
Unknown 11 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 14%
Physics and Astronomy 4 10%
Engineering 2 5%
Materials Science 2 5%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 10 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 05 September 2023.
All research outputs
#4,620,609
of 23,269,984 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Management and Research
#190
of 2,022 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,968
of 318,133 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Management and Research
#3
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,269,984 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,022 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 318,133 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.