↓ Skip to main content

Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy with Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Boost for Unfavorable Prostate Cancer: The Georgetown University Experience

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 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
Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy with Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Boost for Unfavorable Prostate Cancer: The Georgetown University Experience
Published in
Frontiers in oncology, May 2016
DOI 10.3389/fonc.2016.00114
Pubmed ID
Authors

Catherine Mercado, Marie-Adele Kress, Robyn A. Cyr, Leonard N. Chen, Thomas M. Yung, Elizabeth G. Bullock, Siyuan Lei, Brian T. Collins, Andrew N. Satinsky, K. William Harter, Simeng Suy, Anatoly Dritschilo, John H. Lynch, Sean P. Collins

Abstract

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is emerging as a minimally invasive alternative to brachytherapy to deliver highly conformal, dose--escalated radiation therapy (RT) to the prostate. SBRT alone may not adequately cover the tumor extensions outside the prostate commonly seen in unfavorable prostate cancer. External beam radiation therapy (EBRT) with high dose rate brachytherapy boost is a proven effective therapy for unfavorable prostate cancer. This study reports on early prostate-specific antigen and prostate cancer-specific quality of life (QOL) outcomes in a cohort of unfavorable patients treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and SBRT boost. Prostate cancer patients treated with SBRT (19.5 Gy in three fractions) followed by fiducial-guided IMRT (45-50.4 Gy) from March 2008 to September 2012 were included in this retrospective review of prospectively collected data. Biochemical failure was assessed using the Phoenix definition. Patients completed the expanded prostate cancer index composite (EPIC)-26 at baseline, 1 month after the completion of RT, every 3 months for the first year, then every 6 months for a minimum of 2 years. One hundred eight patients (4 low-, 45 intermediate-, and 59 high-risk) with median age of 74 years completed treatment, with median follow-up of 4.4 years. Sixty-four percent of the patients received androgen deprivation therapy prior to the initiation of RT. The 3-year actuarial biochemical control rates were 100 and 89.8% for intermediate- and high-risk patients, respectively. At the initiation of RT, 9 and 5% of men felt their urinary and bowel function was a moderate to big problem, respectively. Mean EPIC urinary and bowel function and bother scores exhibited transient declines, with subsequent return to near baseline. At 2 years posttreatment, 13.7 and 5% of men felt their urinary and bowel function was a moderate to big problem, respectively. At 3-year follow-up, biochemical control was favorable. Acute urinary and bowel symptoms were comparable to conventionally fractionated IMRT and brachytherapy. Patients recovered to near their baseline urinary and bowel function by 2 years posttreatment. A combination of IMRT with SBRT boost is well tolerated with minimal impact on prostate cancer-specific QOL.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 3%
Unknown 32 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 5 15%
Other 5 15%
Student > Postgraduate 3 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 9%
Professor 2 6%
Other 6 18%
Unknown 9 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 48%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Physics and Astronomy 2 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Psychology 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 11 33%
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 06 May 2016.
All research outputs
#20,656,161
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in oncology
#11,313
of 22,416 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#232,499
of 312,375 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in oncology
#61
of 87 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 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 22,416 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 312,375 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 87 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.