↓ Skip to main content

A failure-type specific risk prediction tool for selection of head-and-neck cancer patients for experimental treatments

Overview of attention for article published in Oral Oncology, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 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
A failure-type specific risk prediction tool for selection of head-and-neck cancer patients for experimental treatments
Published in
Oral Oncology, September 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2017.09.018
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katrin Håkansson, Jacob H. Rasmussen, Gregers B. Rasmussen, Jeppe Friborg, Thomas A. Gerds, Barbara Malene Fischer, Flemming L. Andersen, Søren M. Bentzen, Lena Specht, Ivan R. Vogelius

Abstract

The objective of this work was to develop a tool for decision support, providing simultaneous predictions of the risk of loco-regional failure (LRF) and distant metastasis (DM) after definitive treatment for head-and-neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). Retrospective data for 560HNSCC patients were used to generate a multi-endpoint model, combining three cause-specific Cox models (LRF, DM and death with no evidence of disease (death NED)). The model was used to generate risk profiles of patients eligible for/included in a de-intensification study (RTOG 1016) and a dose escalation study (CONTRAST), respectively, to illustrate model predictions versus classic inclusion/exclusion criteria for clinical trials. The model is published as an on-line interactive tool (https://katrin.shinyapps.io/HNSCCmodel/). The final model included pre-selected clinical variables (tumor subsite, T stage, N stage, smoking status, age and performance status) and one additional variable (tumor volume). The treatment failure discrimination ability of the developed model was superior of that of UICC staging, 8(th) edition (AUCLRF=72.7% vs 64.2%, p<0.001 and AUCDM=70.7% vs 58.8%, p<0.001). Using the model for trial inclusion simulation, it was found that 14% of patients eligible for the de-intensification study had>20% risk of tumor relapse. Conversely, 9 of the 15 dose escalation trial participants had LRF risks<20%. A multi-endpoint model was generated and published as an on-line interactive tool. Its potential in decision support was illustrated by generating risk profiles for patients eligible for/included in clinical trials for HNSCC.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 21%
Researcher 6 12%
Student > Master 5 10%
Other 4 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 14 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 42%
Environmental Science 3 6%
Engineering 2 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 19 37%
Attention Score in Context

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 07 November 2017.
All research outputs
#14,393,794
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Oral Oncology
#899
of 1,911 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,336
of 328,838 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Oral Oncology
#7
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,911 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 328,838 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.