↓ Skip to main content

Application of a decision analytic framework for adoption of clinical trial results: are the data regarding TARGIT-A IORT ready for prime time?

Overview of attention for article published in Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 Mendeley
Title
Application of a decision analytic framework for adoption of clinical trial results: are the data regarding TARGIT-A IORT ready for prime time?
Published in
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, March 2014
DOI 10.1007/s10549-014-2881-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

L. J. Esserman, M. D. Alvarado, R. J. Howe, A. J. Mohan, B. Harrison, C. Park, C. O’Donoghue, E. M. Ozanne

Abstract

The results from randomized clinical trials are often adopted slowly. This practice potentially prevents many people from benefiting from more effective care. Provide a framework for analyzing clinical trial results to determine whether and when early adoption of novel interventions is appropriate. The framework includes the evaluation of three components: confidence in trial results, impact of early, and late adoption if trial results are reversed or sustained. The adverse impact of early adoption, and the opportunity cost of late adoption are determined using Markov modeling to simulate the impact of early and late adoption in terms of quality of life years and resources gained or lost. We applied the framework to the TARGIT-A randomized clinical trial comparing intraoperative radiation (IORT) to standard external beam radiation (EBRT) and considered these results in the context of trials comparing endocrine therapy with and without radiation therapy in postmenopausal women. Confidence in the TARGIT-A trial 4 year results is high because the peak hazard for local recurrence in the trial is between 2 and 3 years. This is consistent with most trials, and no second peak has been observed in similar patient populations, suggesting that the TARGIT-A trial results are stable. The interventions offer approximately equivalent life expectancy. If IORT local recurrences rate were as high as 10 % at 10 years (which is higher than expected), we would project only 0.002 fewer expected life years (less than 1 day) compared to EBRT if IORT is adopted early. However, there is a $1.7 billion opportunity cost of waiting an additional 5 years to adopt IORT in low risk, hormone-receptor-positive, postmenopausal women. EBRT costs an additional $1467 in indirect costs per patient. Applying an evaluative framework for the adoption of clinical trial results to the TARGIT-A IORT therapy trial results in the assessment that the trial results are stable, early adoption would lead to minimal adverse impact, and substantially less resource use. Both IORT and no radiation are reasonable strategies to adopt.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Switzerland 1 2%
Unknown 56 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 12%
Student > Master 7 12%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Student > Postgraduate 5 8%
Other 13 22%
Unknown 13 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 10%
Physics and Astronomy 2 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 3%
Computer Science 2 3%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 14 24%
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 14 April 2014.
All research outputs
#15,299,491
of 22,753,345 outputs
Outputs from Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
#3,297
of 4,651 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#131,616
of 221,914 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
#42
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,753,345 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,651 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 221,914 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.