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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Outcome After Sentinel Lymph Node Dissection in Vulvar Cancer: A Subgroup Analysis of the AGO-CaRE-1 Study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of Surgical Oncology, November 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1245/s10434-016-5687-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rüdiger Klapdor, Peter Hillemanns, Linn Wölber, Julia Jückstock, Felix Hilpert, Nikolaus de Gregorio, Severine Iborra, Jalid Sehouli, Anika Habermann, Sophie Teresa Fürst, Hans Georg Strauß, Klaus Baumann, Falk Thiel, Alexander Mustea, Werner Meier, Philipp Harter, Pauline Wimberger, Lars Hanker, Barbara Schmalfeldt, Ulrich Canzler, Tanja Fehm, Alexander Luyten, Martin Hellriegel, Jens Kosse, Christoph Heiss, Peer Hantschmann, Peter Mallmann, Berno Tanner, Jacobus Pfisterer, Barbara Richter, Martin Jäger, Sven Mahner |
| Abstract |
Analyzing the large patient cohort of the multicenter AGO-CaRE-1 study, we compared isolated sentinel lymph node dissection (SLND) with radical lymph node dissection (LND) of the groin in relation to recurrence rates and survival. The AGO-CaRE-1 study retrospectively collected data on treatment patterns and follow-up of vulvar cancer patients [International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage ≥1B] treated at 29 gynecologic cancer centers between 1998 and 2008. This subgroup analysis evaluated the influence of SLND alone on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). In 487 (63.1%) of 772 included patients with tumors smaller than 4 cm, an LND was performed and no metastatic lymph nodes were detected (LN0). Another 69/772 (8.9%) women underwent SLND alone, showing a negative SLN (SLN0). Tumors in the LN0 group were larger and showed a deeper invasion (LN0 vs. SLN0 tumor diameter: 20.0 vs. 13.0 mm, p < 0.001; depth of invasion: 4.0 vs. 3.0 mm, p = 0.002). After a median follow-up of 33 months (0-156), no significant differences in relation to isolated groin recurrence rates (SLN0 3.0% vs. LN0 3.4%, p = 0.845) were detected. Similarly, univariate 3-year PFS analysis showed no significant differences between both groups (SLN0 82.7% vs. LN0 77.6%, p = 0.230). A multivariate Cox regression analysis, including tumor diameter, depth of invasion, age, grading, and lymphovascular space invasion was performed: PFS [hazard ratio (HR) 0.970, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.517-1.821] and OS (HR 0.695, 95% CI 0.261-1.849) did not differ significantly between both cohorts. This subgroup analysis of the large AGO-CaRE-1 study showed similar results for groin LND and SLND alone with regard to recurrence rates and survival in node-negative patients with tumors <4 cm. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 26 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 7 | 27% |
| Researcher | 4 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 8% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 19% |
| Unknown | 3 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 69% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 4% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 4% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 3 | 12% |
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 15 December 2016.
All research outputs
#13,803,367
of 22,912,409 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#3,936
of 6,495 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#214,269
of 416,661 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#48
of 69 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,912,409 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,495 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 416,661 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 69 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.