| Title |
High-intensity focused ultrasound therapy in combination with gemcitabine for unresectable pancreatic carcinoma
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, May 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/tcrm.s90567 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Wei Lv, Tao Yan, Guojin Wang, Wei Zhao, Tao Zhang, Dinghua Zhou |
| Abstract |
To investigate the therapeutic effect and safety of high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) therapy combined with gemcitabine in treating unresectable pancreatic carcinoma. The 45 patients suffering from pancreatic carcinoma were randomized into two groups. The patients in the experimental group (n=23) received HIFU in combination with gemcitabine and those in the control group (n=22) received gemcitabine alone. The effect and clinical benefit rates in the two groups were compared. The median survival time and 6-month and 12-month survival rates were calculated by Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test. The median survival time and 6-month survival rate were significantly higher in the experimental group than in the control group (8.91 months vs 5.53 months, 73.9% vs 40.9%, respectively P<0.05), but 12-month survival rate was not statistically different between the two groups (13.0% vs 4.5%, P>0.05). The clinical benefit rates in the experimental group and the control group were 69.6% and 36.3%, respectively (P<0.05). The pain remission rate in the experimental group was significantly higher than that in the control group (65.2% vs 31.8%, P<0.05). HIFU in combination with gemcitabine is better than gemcitabine alone. This combinatorial therapy may become a better and effective treatment for unresectable pancreatic carcinoma. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 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 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 14 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 3 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 14% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 6 | 43% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 29% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 1 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 7% |
| Engineering | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 7 | 50% |
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 03 May 2016.
All research outputs
#19,945,185
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#1,020
of 1,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#217,276
of 311,862 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#45
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,323 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 311,862 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 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.