↓ Skip to main content

Pulmonary Metastasectomy for Colorectal Cancer: Recent Reports Prompt a Review of the Available Evidence

Overview of attention for article published in Current Colorectal Cancer Reports, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 Mendeley
Title
Pulmonary Metastasectomy for Colorectal Cancer: Recent Reports Prompt a Review of the Available Evidence
Published in
Current Colorectal Cancer Reports, August 2014
DOI 10.1007/s11888-014-0234-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tom Treasure

Abstract

Pulmonary metastasectomy for colorectal cancer is commonplace surgery, but the practice has grown on the basis of follow-up studies. These studies base their conclusion on the effectiveness of metastasectomy on the survival rates at 5 years of very highly selected patients. Three publications in the last year, a registry study, a meta-analysis and a randomised controlled trial of monitoring and early detection of cancer recurrence, prompted a review of the evidence. A critical examination of the evidence suggests that much of the apparent benefit may be due to selection of patients most likely to survive on the basis of well-known prognostic features, explicitly stated in the clinical record. Clinicians also assess their patients over time and do not offer surgery to those with faster progression. Such clinical judgements are of their nature often subtle and undocumented and thus cannot be retrieved from the clinical record. Although some patients may have long survival following pulmonary metastasectomy, and indeed their survival might be believed to be due to resection of pulmonary metastases, how many patients must be operated on to find these survivors? What is the number 'needed to treat'? It may be that of the patients having metastasectomy, for the greater proportion it does not materially alter their survival. A randomised controlled trial to resolve this uncertainty is in progress. The Pulmonary Metastasectomy in Colorectal Cancer (PulMiCC) trial is recruiting in Britain and Europe.

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 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 5%
Denmark 1 5%
Egypt 1 5%
Unknown 18 86%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 19%
Student > Master 4 19%
Other 2 10%
Student > Bachelor 1 5%
Professor 1 5%
Other 5 24%
Unknown 4 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 67%
Psychology 2 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Engineering 1 5%
Unknown 3 14%
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 10 September 2014.
All research outputs
#20,656,820
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Current Colorectal Cancer Reports
#562
of 736 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#180,692
of 247,205 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Colorectal Cancer Reports
#13
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 736 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.0. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 247,205 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 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.