↓ Skip to main content

High-intensity focused ultrasound for focal therapy

Overview of attention for article published in Current Opinion in Urology, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 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
High-intensity focused ultrasound for focal therapy
Published in
Current Opinion in Urology, March 2017
DOI 10.1097/mou.0000000000000372
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ariel A. Schulman, Kae Jack Tay, Cary N. Robertson, Thomas J. Polascik

Abstract

Progress in imaging, fusion software, and ablative modalities has fostered growth of the latest image-guided generation of high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) for focal treatment of prostate cancer. Although early reports are encouraging, important questions remain regarding candidate selection, treatment, and outcomes. We review contemporary considerations for the use of HIFU for focal treatment of primary and radio-recurrent prostate cancer. HIFU has been used to treat prostate cancer for over two decades. More recently, stage migration from screening and improvements in pelvic imaging and fusion technology has resulted in wider clinical application of focal HIFU as a first-line treatment for localized prostate cancer. Advanced imaging has also improved targeting for focal salvage therapy of radio-recurrent disease. Proponents point to the minimally invasive nature, limited morbidity profile, and ability to perform retreatments in the future. Critics emphasize positive post-treatment biopsies, nonuniform treatment protocols, and absence of long-term follow-up. Thus, a review of clinical considerations and recently published data is warranted. Recent advances have strengthened support for the use of focal HIFU. Although HIFU has great potential, it must be applied judiciously, maintaining appropriate oncologic principles in the setting of standardized trials to determine its true clinical value.

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 23%
Other 5 17%
Student > Postgraduate 4 13%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Student > Master 2 7%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 5 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Computer Science 1 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 8 27%
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 19 September 2018.
All research outputs
#17,286,379
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Current Opinion in Urology
#519
of 1,080 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#210,066
of 324,430 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Opinion in Urology
#5
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,080 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 324,430 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.