↓ Skip to main content

Impact of prone versus supine positioning on small bowel dose with pelvic intensity modulated radiation therapy

Overview of attention for article published in Advances in Radiation Oncology , January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 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
Impact of prone versus supine positioning on small bowel dose with pelvic intensity modulated radiation therapy
Published in
Advances in Radiation Oncology , January 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.adro.2017.01.005
Pubmed ID
Authors

Victor J. Gonzalez, Craig R. Hullett, Lindsay Burt, Prema Rassiah-Szegedi, Vikren Sarkar, Jonathan D. Tward, Lisa J. Hazard, Y. Jessica Huang, Bill J. Salter, David K. Gaffney

Abstract

To report the results of a prospective study that compares small bowel doses during prone and supine pelvic intensity modulated radiation therapy. Ten patients receiving pelvic radiation therapy each had 2 intensity modulated radiation therapy plans generated: supine and prone on a belly board (PBB). Computed tomography on rails was performed weekly throughout treatment in both positions (10 scans per patient). After image fusion, doses to small bowel (SB) loops and clinical target volume were calculated for each scan. Changes between the planned and received doses were analyzed and compared between positions. The impact of bladder filling on SB dose was also assessed. Prone treatment was associated with significantly lower volumes of SB receiving ≥20 Gy. On average, prone on a belly board positioning reduced the volume of SB receiving a given dose of radiation by 28% compared with supine positioning. Target coverage throughout the treatment course was similar in both positions with an average minimum clinical target volume dose of 88% of the prescribed prone dose and 89% of the supine (P = .54). For supine treatment, SB dose was inversely correlated with bladder filling (P = .001-.013; P > .15 for prone). For 96% of treatments, the volume of SB that received a given dose deviated >10% from the plan. The deviation between the planned and delivered doses to SB did not differ significantly between the positions. Prone positioning on a belly board during pelvic IMRT consistently reduces the volume of SB that receives a broad range of radiation doses. Prone IMRT is associated with interfraction dose variation to SB that is similar to that of supine positioning. These findings suggest that prone positioning with daily image guided radiation therapy is an effective method for maximizing SB sparing during pelvic IMRT.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 17%
Researcher 4 14%
Student > Postgraduate 3 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 10%
Professor 2 7%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 8 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 7 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 14%
Psychology 3 10%
Physics and Astronomy 2 7%
Computer Science 1 3%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 10 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 04 July 2017.
All research outputs
#4,789,904
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Radiation Oncology
#208
of 885 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,703
of 422,553 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Radiation Oncology
#2
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 885 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 422,553 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.