↓ Skip to main content

Intraoperative Radiation for Breast Cancer with Intrabeam™: Factors Associated with Decreased Operative Times in Patients Having IORT for Breast Cancer

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 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
Intraoperative Radiation for Breast Cancer with Intrabeam™: Factors Associated with Decreased Operative Times in Patients Having IORT for Breast Cancer
Published in
Frontiers in oncology, October 2017
DOI 10.3389/fonc.2017.00237
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephanie A. Valente, Alicia Fanning, Robyn A. Stewart, Sharon Grundfest, Rahul D. Tendulkar, Sheen Cherian, Chirag Shah, Chao Tu, Courtney Yanda, Diane Radford, Zahraa Al-Hilli, Stephen R. Grobmyer

Abstract

Intraoperative radiation with Intrabeam™ (IORT) for breast cancer is a newer technology recently implemented into the operating room (OR). This procedure requires time and coordination between the surgeon and radiation oncologist, who both perform their treatments in a single operative setting. We evaluated the surgeons at our center, who perform IORT and their OR times to examine changes in OR times following implementation of this new surgical procedure. We hypothesized that IORT is a technique for which timing could be improved with the increasing number of cases performed. A prospectively maintained IRB approved database was queried for OR times (incision and close) in patients who underwent breast conserving surgery (BCS), sentinel lymph node biopsy with and without IORT using the Intrabeam™ system at our institution from 2011 to 2015. The total OR times were compared for each surgeon individually and over time. Next, the OR times of each surgeon were compared to each other. Continuous variables were summarized and then a prediction model was created using IORT time, OR time, surgeon, and number of cases performed. There were five surgeons performing IORT at our institution during this time period with a total of 96 cases performed. There was a significant difference observed in baseline surgeon-specific OR time for BSC (p = 0.03) as well as for BCS with IORT (p < 0.05), attributable to surgeon experience. The average BCS times were faster than the BCS plus IORT procedure times for all surgeons. The overall mean OR time for the entire combined surgical and radiation procedure was 135.5 min. The most common applicator sizes used were the 3.5 and 4 cm, yielding an average 21 min IORT time. Applicator choice did not differ over time (p = 0.189). After adjusting for IORT time and surgeon, the prediction model estimated that surgeons decreased the total BCS plus IORT OR time at a rate of -4.5 min per each additional 10 cases performed. Surgeon experience and applicator size are related to OR times for performing IORT for breast cancer. OR time for IORT in breast cancer treatment can be improved over time, even among experienced surgeons.

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 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%
Other 3 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 6%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 6%
Student > Master 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 6 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 28%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 6%
Computer Science 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 6 33%
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 09 October 2017.
All research outputs
#17,681,513
of 25,990,981 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in oncology
#8,062
of 22,858 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#215,400
of 337,100 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in oncology
#51
of 98 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,990,981 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,858 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 337,100 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 98 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.