| Title |
Leaflet manual of external beam radiation therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma: a review of the indications, evidences, and clinical trials
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
OncoTargets and therapy, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ott.s164651 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Chai Hong Rim, Won Sup Yoon |
| Abstract |
The use of external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), which was rarely performed due to liver toxicity with a previous technique, has increased. Palliation of portal vein thrombosis, supplementation for insufficient transarterial chemoembolization, and provision of new curative opportunities using stereotactic body radiotherapy are the potential indications for use of EBRT. The mechanism of EBRT treatment, with its radiobiological and physical perspectives, differs from those of conventional medical treatment or surgery. Therefore, understanding the effects of EBRT may be unfamiliar to physicians other than radiation oncologists, especially in the field of HCC, where EBRT has recently begun to be applied. The first objective of this review was to concisely explain the indications for use of EBRT for HCC for all physicians treating HCC. Therefore, this review focuses on the therapeutic outcomes rather than the detailed biological and physical background. We also reviewed recent clinical trials that may extend the indications for use of EBRT. Finally, we reviewed the current clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of HCC and discuss the current recommendations and future perspectives. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Korea, Republic of | 2 | 40% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 17 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 2 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 12% |
| Researcher | 2 | 12% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 12% |
| Other | 2 | 12% |
| Unknown | 5 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 41% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 6% |
| Engineering | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 7 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 02 November 2018.
All research outputs
#8,320,761
of 25,523,622 outputs
Outputs from OncoTargets and therapy
#496
of 3,021 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#133,073
of 339,560 outputs
Outputs of similar age from OncoTargets and therapy
#15
of 95 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,523,622 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,021 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 339,560 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 60% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 95 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.