| Title |
Radiotherapy for esophageal carcinoma: dose, response and survival
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cancer Management and Research, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/cmar.s144687 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yijun Luo, Qingfeng Mao, Xiaoli Wang, Jinming Yu, Minghuan Li |
| Abstract |
Esophageal cancer (EC) is an extremely aggressive, lethal malignancy that is increasing in incidence worldwide. At present, definitive chemoradiotherapy is accepted as the standard treatment for locally advanced EC. The EC guidelines recommend a radiation dose of 50.4 Gy for definitive treatment, yet the outcomes for patients who have received standard-dose radiotherapy remain unsatisfactory. However, some studies indicate that a higher radiation dose could improve local tumor control, and may also confer survival benefits. Some studies, however, suggest that high-dose radiotherapy does not bring survival benefit. The available data show that most failures occurred in the gross target volume (especially in the primary tumor) after definitive chemoradiation. Based on those studies, we hypothesize that at least for some patients, more intense local therapy may lead to better local control and survival. The aim of this review is to evaluate the radiation dose, fractionation strategies, and predictive factors of response to therapy in functional imaging for definitive chemoradiotherapy in esophageal carcinoma, with an emphasis on seeking the predictive model of response to CRT and trying to individualize the radiation dose for EC patients. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 38 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 18% |
| Researcher | 6 | 16% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 10 | 26% |
| Unknown | 5 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 50% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 3 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 5% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 10 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 29 December 2017.
All research outputs
#18,581,651
of 23,015,156 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Management and Research
#1,056
of 2,017 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#325,801
of 437,955 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Management and Research
#28
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,015,156 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,017 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 437,955 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.