| Title |
Surgical Resection Versus Palliative Chemoradiotherapy for the Management of Pancreatic Cancer with Local Venous Invasion: A Decision Analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery, October 2008
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11605-008-0648-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michael A. Abramson, Edward W. Swanson, Edward E. Whang |
| Abstract |
Benefit from pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) combined with superior mesenteric-portal vein (SMV-PV) resection in the management of pancreatic adenocarcinoma with local venous invasion remains controversial. Using formal decision analysis, we compared survival associated with PD plus SMV-PV resection when applied to patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma with isolated local venous invasion (Group 1) versus that achieved with palliative chemoradiotherapy when applied to patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (Group 2). Individual studies were identified using Medline. A total of 1,324 and 709 patients were analyzed for Groups 1 and 2, respectively. Patients with distant metastases were excluded. Overall decision analysis favored surgical resection (Group 1) over palliative chemoradiotherapy (Group 2). Sensitivity analyses indicated that this decision is sensitive to the perioperative mortality rate and the percentage of surgical resections with microscopic (R1) or macroscopic (R2) residual tumor at the resection margin. In contrast, sensitivity analysis revealed that the decision is not sensitive to the percentage of cases in which true venous invasion by cancer is documented histologically. Surgical resection may confer a survival advantage over palliative chemoradiotherapy in select patients with pancreatic cancers with presumed local venous invasion. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 22 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 32% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 23% |
| Other | 3 | 14% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 9% |
| Researcher | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 3 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 45% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 14% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 9% |
| Unknown | 5 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 31 October 2013.
All research outputs
#8,543,833
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery
#763
of 2,489 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,878
of 103,055 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery
#6
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,489 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 103,055 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.