↓ Skip to main content

Relationship between Glioblastoma Dose Volume Parameters Measured by Dual Time Point Fluoroethylthyrosine-PET and Clinical Outcomes

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 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
Relationship between Glioblastoma Dose Volume Parameters Measured by Dual Time Point Fluoroethylthyrosine-PET and Clinical Outcomes
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, January 2018
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2017.00756
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maciej Harat, Bogdan Małkowski, Izabela Wiatrowska, Roman Makarewicz, Krzysztof Roszkowski

Abstract

Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is highly invasive. Despite irradiation with wide margins, GBM usually recurs in-field. Recent in vitro data have suggested that progression might be promoted by sublethal irradiation. Fluoroethylthyrosine-PET (FET-PET) can be used to detect glioblastoma invasion not apparent on MRI. We therefore performed a retrospective analysis of a prospective clinical study to examine whether glioblastoma outcomes depend on dose volume parameters measured by MRI and FET-PET. Twenty-three patients were prospectively recruited to a study examining the role of dual time point FET-PET in the treatment planning of GBM radiotherapy. The dose delivered to the site of recurrence was subdivided into suboptimal-dose (SOD) and high-dose (HD) areas. Types of progression were defined for correlation with dosimetric parameters including V100% of gross tumor volume (GTV)PET, GTVPETMRI, and GTVMRI. The HD area did not cover the entire GTVPETMRI in any case. Recurrences were significantly more frequent in the SubD area (chi-squared test, p = 0.004). There was no relationship between increasing dose volume and progression. The V100% for GTVPET and progression-free survival (PFS) was positively correlated (Spearman's rho 0.417; p = 0.038). Progression is more common in areas with suboptimal dosing. Dose heterogeneity within GTVPET may be responsible for shorter PFS.

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 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 25%
Other 4 20%
Student > Bachelor 3 15%
Researcher 2 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 10%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 2 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 50%
Physics and Astronomy 3 15%
Neuroscience 2 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Unknown 4 20%
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 07 February 2018.
All research outputs
#18,583,054
of 23,016,919 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#7,858
of 11,914 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#330,355
of 441,076 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#146
of 225 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,016,919 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,914 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 441,076 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 225 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.