↓ Skip to main content

Proton therapy for early stage prostate cancer: is there a case?

Overview of attention for article published in OncoTargets and therapy, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Proton therapy for early stage prostate cancer: is there a case?
Published in
OncoTargets and therapy, September 2016
DOI 10.2147/ott.s108559
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tabitha Y Chan, Poh Wee Tan, Johann I Tang

Abstract

Proton-beam therapy (PBT) for prostate cancer has been in used for several decades, with its technique evolving significantly over this period. A growing number of centers now routinely utilize pencil-beam scanning as an advanced technique of PBT. Interest and controversy concerning its use have recently come under scrutiny. While the past decade has produced an assemblage of evidence suggesting that PBT is safe and effective for early stage prostate cancer, it is still unknown whether the theoretical dosimetric advantages of PBT translate into meaningful clinical improvements over routine intensity-modulated radiation therapy, which is commonly used for these patients. Outcomes from early trials using whole courses of PBT have shown mixed results when compared with routine intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Therefore, randomized trials comparing these two techniques should be undertaken, as this would help in defining the role of PBT for this patient group. This article aims to describe the basics of PBT, review the reasons for the growing interest in PBT, review the evidence for PBT, review the controversy surrounding PBT, and inquire about PBT's future in the treatment of prostate cancer, with attention to its physical properties, comparative clinical and cost-effectiveness, and advances in its delivery.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 3 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 16%
Researcher 2 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Student > Bachelor 1 5%
Other 4 21%
Unknown 5 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 26%
Physics and Astronomy 3 16%
Psychology 2 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 5 26%
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 14 September 2016.
All research outputs
#21,633,267
of 26,557,909 outputs
Outputs from OncoTargets and therapy
#1,630
of 3,031 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#276,200
of 352,210 outputs
Outputs of similar age from OncoTargets and therapy
#53
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,557,909 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,031 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. 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 352,210 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.