↓ Skip to main content

Single Institutional Experience of Stereotactic Radiosurgery Alone for First Brain Metastatic Event and Salvage of Second Brain Metastatic Event in a Community Setting with Review of the Literature

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
10 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
Single Institutional Experience of Stereotactic Radiosurgery Alone for First Brain Metastatic Event and Salvage of Second Brain Metastatic Event in a Community Setting with Review of the Literature
Published in
Frontiers in oncology, March 2017
DOI 10.3389/fonc.2017.00032
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shaharyar Ahmad, Anthony Ricco, Royce Brown, Alexandra Hanlon, Jun Yang, Jing Feng, Michael Stanley, Richard Buonocore, Aubrey Okpaku, Steven Arrigo, John Lamond, Luther Brady, Rachelle Lanciano

Abstract

To document survival for patients treated with stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) alone for brain metastases either at initial presentation or for salvage in conjunction with other known prognostic factors in a single institutional community setting with comparison to current literature. All patients treated for brain metastases with SRS between October 2006 and October 2013 were reviewed. We identified 91 patients treated with SRS alone for first brain metastatic event (FBME) and 87 patients treated with SRS for second brain metastatic event (SBME). We excluded the 14 patients treated with SRS for both FBME and SBME to satisfy the independence assumption for comparison of groups. Patient demographics, including age, gender, primary cancer type, presence of extracranial metastases, number of brain metastases, initial site of metastases (brain vs. other), recursive partitioning analysis (RPA), and Karnofsky Performance status (KPS) were documented. There were no significant differences in overall survival for patients treated with SRS for FBME compared with SBME (log-rank p = 0.9347). Univariate and multivariable Cox regression modeling revealed KPS (p = 0.0003) and RPA (p = 0.0143) were the only independent prognostic factors for survival. Specifically, patients with RPA 1 had a 61% decreased risk of death compared to those with RPA 3. Patients with RPA 2 had a 33% decreased risk of death compared to those with RPA 3. The 1-year survival rate was 36.5% for patients with RPA1, 33.3% for those with RPA 2, and 17.1% for those with RPA 3. Patients with KPS 90-100 had a 62% decreased risk of death compared to those with KPS < 70. The 1-year survival rate for patients KPS 90-100, 70-80, and <70 were 60.7, 24.6, and 16.7%, respectively. No difference in survival was noted for FBME and SBME with performance status, the single most important prognostic factor following SRS. Aggressive treatment should be considered for patients with good performance status regardless if presenting with FBME or SBME. Our results are consistent with single, multi-institutional, and randomized trials after literature review.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 10 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 2 20%
Student > Postgraduate 2 20%
Student > Bachelor 1 10%
Unknown 5 50%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 30%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 10%
Unknown 6 60%
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 26 March 2017.
All research outputs
#15,742,933
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in oncology
#4,970
of 22,428 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#179,538
of 321,120 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in oncology
#26
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 75% 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 321,120 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.