↓ Skip to main content

Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy with Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Boost for Unfavorable Prostate Cancer: A Report on 3-Year Toxicity

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in oncology, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 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: A Report on 3-Year Toxicity
Published in
Frontiers in oncology, February 2017
DOI 10.3389/fonc.2017.00005
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ima Paydar, Abigail Pepin, Robyn A. Cyr, Joseph King, Thomas M. Yung, Elizabeth G. Bullock, Siyuan Lei, Andrew Satinsky, K. William Harter, Simeng Suy, Anatoly Dritschilo, John H. Lynch, Thomas P. Kole, Sean P. Collins

Abstract

Recent data suggest that intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plus brachytherapy boost for unfavorable prostate cancer provides improved biochemical relapse-free survival over IMRT alone. Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) may be a less invasive alternative to brachytherapy boost. Here, we report the 3-year gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicities of IMRT plus SBRT boost. Between March 2008 and September 2012, patients with prostate cancer were treated with robotic SBRT (19.5 Gy in three fractions) followed by fiducial-guided IMRT (45-50.4 Gy) on an institutional protocol. Toxicity was prospectively graded using the common terminology criteria for adverse events version 4.0 (CTCAEv.4) at the start of and at 1- to 6-month intervals after therapy. Rectal telangiectasias were graded using the Vienna Rectoscopy Score (VRS). At a median follow-up of 4.2 years (2.4-7.5), 108 patients (4 low-, 45 intermediate-, and 59 high-risk) with a median age of 74 years (55-92) were treated with SBRT plus IMRT, with 8% on anticoagulation and an additional 48% on antiplatelet therapy at the start of therapy. The cumulative incidence of late ≥grade 2 GI toxicity was 12%. Of these, 7% were due to late rectal bleeding, with six patients requiring up to two coagulation procedures. One patient with rectal telangiectasias was treated with hyperbaric oxygen (grade 3 toxicity). No rectal fistulas or stenoses were observed. Ten patients had multiple non-confluent telangiectasias (VRS grade 2), and three patients had multiple confluent telangiectasias (VRS grade 3). The cumulative incidence of late grade 3 GU toxicity was 6%. Most late toxicities were due to hematuria requiring bladder fulguration. There were no late ≥grade 4 GU toxicities. Rates of clinically significant GI and GU toxicities are modest following IMRT plus SBRT boost. Future studies should compare cancer control, quality of life, and toxicity with other treatment modalities for patients with high-risk prostate cancer.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 6 17%
Student > Master 6 17%
Researcher 6 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 17%
Other 3 8%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 4 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 56%
Sports and Recreations 3 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 6%
Psychology 2 6%
Environmental Science 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 6 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 17 September 2020.
All research outputs
#14,605,790
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in oncology
#3,826
of 22,428 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#213,663
of 424,567 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in oncology
#10
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,428 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 424,567 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.