↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Proton beam therapy in non-small cell lung cancer: state of the art

Overview of attention for article published in Lung Cancer: Targets and Therapy, 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 (78th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
Title
Proton beam therapy in non-small cell lung cancer: state of the art
Published in
Lung Cancer: Targets and Therapy, August 2017
DOI 10.2147/lctt.s117647
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hideyuki Harada, Shigeyuki Murayama

Abstract

This review summarizes the past and present status of proton beam therapy (PBT) for lung cancer. PBT has a unique characteristic called the Bragg peak that enables a reduction in the dose of normal tissue around the tumor, but is sensitive to the uncertainties of density changes. The heterogeneity in electron density for thoracic lesions, such as those in the lung and mediastinum, and tumor movement according to respiration necessitates respiratory management for PBT to be applied in lung cancer patients. There are two types of PBT - a passively scattered approach and a scanning approach. Typically, a passively scattered approach is more robust for respiratory movement and a scanning approach could result in a more conformal dose distribution even when the tumor shape is complex. Large tumors of centrally located lung cancer may be more suitably irradiated than with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) or stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). For a locally advanced lung cancer, PBT can spare the lung and heart more than photon IMRT. However, no randomized controlled trial has reported differences between PBT and IMRT or SBRT for early-stage and locally advanced lung cancers. Therefore, a well-designed controlled trial is warranted.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 20%
Student > Master 6 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Lecturer 2 7%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Other 8 27%
Unknown 2 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 50%
Physics and Astronomy 6 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 4 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 14 September 2017.
All research outputs
#2,338,079
of 15,056,344 outputs
Outputs from Lung Cancer: Targets and Therapy
#8
of 89 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,025
of 271,538 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Lung Cancer: Targets and Therapy
#2
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,056,344 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 89 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 271,538 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.