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 |
Effect of RTOG breast/chest wall guidelines on dose‐volume histogram parameters*
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, March 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1120/jacmp.v15i2.4547 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sonali Rudra, Hania A. Al‐Hallaq, Christine Feng, Steven J. Chmura, Yasmin Hasan |
| Abstract |
Treatment planning for breast cancer has been traditionally based on clinical landmarks. The Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) published consensus guidelines on contouring target volumes (TV) for the breast/chest wall and draining lymphatics. The effect of these guidelines on dosimetric parameters in surrounding organs at risk (OAR) and TVs is unknown. Fourteen patients treated with clinically derived plans from 2007-2011 (Group I) and fourteen patients treated with target volume-based plans from 2011-2012 were selected for comparison (Group II). Treatment plans were constructed based on clinical landmarks (Group I) or TVs (Group II) to a median dose of 50.4 Gy to the breast/chest wall, axilla (Ax), supraclavicular (SCV), and internal mammary (IMN) lymph nodes. The RTOG TVs were then contoured in Group I patients by a single investigator blinded to the dose distributions. Dose-volume histograms (DVH) were computed for the RTOG TVs and OARs in both groups, and DVH parameters were compared. In Group II, coverage improved for the SCV (V90 = 78.0% versus 93.6%, p = 0.02) and intact breast (V95 = 95.6% versus 99.3%, p = 0.007). The dose to the cord, the lung (V20Gy and V30Gy), and contralateral breast (V5Gy) were the same. Finally, the low dose to the heart and lung was decreased in Group II (heart V5Gy= 48.7% versus 27.3%, p= 0.02, heart V10Gy = 33.5% vs. 17.5%, p = 0.01, and ipsilateral lung V5Gy = 84.5% vs. 69.3%, p = 0.001). Overall, our study supports that treatment planning using the RTOG consensus guidelines can improve coverage to certain target volumes compared to treatments based solely on clinical landmarks. Additionally, treatment planning using these target volumes does not increase dose to the contralateral breast, cord, heart, or lungs. Longer follow-up is needed to determine if using these target volumes will affect clinical outcomes. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 1 | 50% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 51 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 12% |
| Other | 5 | 10% |
| Researcher | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 10 | 19% |
| Unknown | 18 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 29% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 6 | 12% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 10% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Unknown | 20 | 38% |
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 April 2021.
All research outputs
#14,779,591
of 22,753,345 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics
#774
of 1,826 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#125,820
of 221,377 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics
#3
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,753,345 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,826 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 221,377 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.