↓ Skip to main content

Urethrogram-Directed Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer in Patients with Contraindications to Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in oncology, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 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
Urethrogram-Directed Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer in Patients with Contraindications to Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Published in
Frontiers in oncology, September 2015
DOI 10.3389/fonc.2015.00194
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ima Paydar, Brian S. Kim, Robyn A. Cyr, Harriss Rashid, Amna Anjum, Thomas M. Yung, Siyuan Lei, Brian T. Collins, Simeng Suy, Anatoly Dritschilo, John H. Lynch, Sean P. Collins

Abstract

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-directed stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has been established as a safe and effective treatment for prostate cancer. For patients with contraindications to MRI, CT-urethrogram is an alternative imaging approach to identify the location of the prostatic apex to guide treatment. This study sought to evaluate the safety of urethrogram-directed SBRT for prostate cancer. Between February 2009 and January 2014, 31 men with clinically localized prostate cancer were treated definitively with urethrogram-directed SBRT with or without supplemental intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) at Georgetown University Hospital. SBRT was delivered either as a primary treatment of 35-36.25 Gy in five fractions or as a boost of 19.5 Gy in three fractions followed by supplemental conventionally fractionated IMRT (45-50.4 Gy). Toxicities were recorded and scored using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0 (CTCAE v.4.0). The median patient age was 70 years with a median prostate volume of 38 cc. The median follow-up was 3.7 years. The patients were elderly (Median age = 70), and comorbidities were common (Carlson comorbidity index ≥2 in 36%). Seventy-one percent of patients utilized alpha agonists prior to treatment, and 9.7% had prior procedures for benign prostatic hyperplasia. The 3-year actuarial incidence rates of ≥Grade 3 GU toxicity and ≥Grade 2 GI toxicity were 3.2 and 9.7%, respectively, and there were no Grade 4 or 5 toxicities. Magnetic resonance imaging is the preferred imaging modality to guide prostate SBRT treatment. However, urethrogram-directed SBRT is a safe alternative for the treatment of patients with prostate cancer who are unable to undergo MRI.

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 5 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 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 28%
Professor 3 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 6%
Student > Bachelor 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 6 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 44%
Physics and Astronomy 2 11%
Psychology 1 6%
Social Sciences 1 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 28%
Attention Score in Context

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 11 September 2020.
All research outputs
#8,789,474
of 26,150,873 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in oncology
#3,445
of 22,908 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,475
of 278,427 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in oncology
#16
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,150,873 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 22,908 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 278,427 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 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 67 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.