↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Radiation-induced secondary malignancies for nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a pilot study of patients treated via IMRT or VMAT

Overview of attention for article published in Cancer Management and Research, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
Title
Radiation-induced secondary malignancies for nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a pilot study of patients treated via IMRT or VMAT
Published in
Cancer Management and Research, January 2018
DOI 10.2147/cmar.s145713
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hsiao-Fei Lee, Jen-Hong Lan, Pei-Ju Chao, Hui-Min Ting, Hui-Chun Chen, Hsuan-Chih Hsu, Tsair-Fwu Lee

Abstract

Patients treated with radiotherapy are at risk of developing a second cancer during their lifetime, which can directly impact treatment decision-making and patient management. The aim of this study was to qualify and compare the secondary cancer risk (SCR) after intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) patients. We analyzed the treatment plans of a cohort of 10 NPC patients originally treated with IMRT or VMAT. Dose distributions in these plans were used to calculate the organ equivalent dose (OED) with Schneider's full model. Analyses were applied to the brain stem, spinal cord, oral cavity, pharynx, parotid glands, lung, mandible, healthy tissue, and planning target volume. We observed that the OED-based risks of SCR were slightly higher for the oral cavity and mandible when VMAT was used. No significant difference was found in terms of the doses to other organs, including the brain stem, parotids, pharynx, submandibular gland, lung, spinal cord, and healthy tissue. In the NPC cohort, the lungs were the organs that were most sensitive to radiation-induced cancer. VMAT afforded superior results in terms of organ-at-risk-sparing compared with IMRT. Most OED-based second cancer risks for various organs were similar when VMAT and IMRT were employed, but the risks for the oral cavity and mandible were slightly higher when VMAT was used.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 14%
Lecturer 2 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Student > Master 2 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 12 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 21%
Physics and Astronomy 3 11%
Engineering 2 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 13 46%
Attention Score in Context

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 19 January 2018.
All research outputs
#17,926,658
of 23,016,919 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Management and Research
#948
of 2,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#310,377
of 442,354 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Management and Research
#23
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,016,919 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,016 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 442,354 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.