↓ Skip to main content

Predicting Biochemical Disease-Free Survival after Prostate Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy: Risk-Stratification and Patterns of Failure

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in oncology, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 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
Predicting Biochemical Disease-Free Survival after Prostate Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy: Risk-Stratification and Patterns of Failure
Published in
Frontiers in oncology, July 2016
DOI 10.3389/fonc.2016.00168
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alan Katz, Silvia C. Formenti, Josephine Kang

Abstract

To determine appropriate risk-stratification factors for prostate cancer patients undergoing stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). Between 2006 and 2010, 515 patients with organ-confined prostate cancer were treated with a regimen of five-fraction SBRT to dose of 35-36.25 Gy. By NCCN criteria, 324 patients were low risk, 153 were intermediate risk, and 38 were high risk. Patients were defined as unfavorable intermediate risk if Gleason 4 + 3 = 7 or >1 intermediate-risk factors (cT2b, c, PSA 10-20, Gleason 3 + 4 = 7). Cox regression analysis was used to determine risk factors significantly associated biochemical failure, and patterns of failure analyzed. With median follow-up of 84 months, the 8-year disease-free survival was 93.6, 84.3, and 65.0% for low, intermediate, and high-risk group patients, respectively. Based on the above definition, 106 favorable intermediate-risk patients had excellent outcomes, with no significant difference compared to low-risk patients (7-year DFS 95.2 vs. 93.2%, respectively). The 47 unfavorable intermediate-risk patients had worse outcomes, similar to high-risk patients (7-year DFS 68.2 vs. 65.0%, respectively). Gleason score was the only significant factor associated with biochemical failure on multivariate analysis (p = 0.0003). Patients with favorable intermediate-risk disease have excellent outcomes, comparable to low-risk patients. Patients with unfavorable intermediate-risk disease have significantly worse outcomes after SBRT, and should be considered for clinical trials or treatment intensification.

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 profiles of 2 X users 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 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 44 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 22%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 16%
Other 5 11%
Student > Master 4 9%
Student > Postgraduate 3 7%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 10 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 62%
Physics and Astronomy 3 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Unknown 12 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 11 July 2020.
All research outputs
#16,737,737
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in oncology
#6,626
of 22,440 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#230,960
of 370,847 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in oncology
#23
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,440 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 370,847 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.