↓ Skip to main content

The oligometastatic state—separating truth from wishful thinking

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology, June 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
13 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
247 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
206 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
The oligometastatic state—separating truth from wishful thinking
Published in
Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology, June 2014
DOI 10.1038/nrclinonc.2014.96
Pubmed ID
Authors

David A. Palma, Joseph K. Salama, Simon S. Lo, Suresh Senan, Tom Treasure, Ramaswamy Govindan, Ralph Weichselbaum

Abstract

The oligometastatic paradigm implies that patients who develop a small number of metastatic lesions might achieve long-term survival if all these lesions are ablated with surgery or stereotactic radiotherapy. Clinical data indicate that the number of patients with oligometastatic disease receiving aggressive treatment is increasing rapidly. We examine the key evidence supporting or refuting the existence of an oligometastatic state. Numerous single-arm studies suggest that long-term survival is 'better-than-expected' after ablative treatment. However, the few studies with adequate controls raise the possibility that this long-term survival might not be due to the treatments themselves, but rather to the selection of patients based on favourable inclusion criteria. Furthermore, ablative treatments carry a risk of harming healthy tissue, yet the risk-benefit ratio cannot be quantified if the benefits are unmeasured. If the strategy of treating oligometastases is to gain widespread acceptance as routine clinical practice, there should be stronger evidence supporting its efficacy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 206 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Unknown 203 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 35 17%
Researcher 34 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 12%
Student > Master 16 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 7%
Other 46 22%
Unknown 35 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 104 50%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 4%
Physics and Astronomy 7 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 <1%
Other 12 6%
Unknown 55 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 16 September 2021.
All research outputs
#2,261,842
of 22,757,541 outputs
Outputs from Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology
#525
of 2,047 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,113
of 228,106 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology
#9
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,757,541 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,047 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 228,106 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.