↓ Skip to main content

Oncological strategies for locally advanced rectal cancer with synchronous liver metastases, interval strategy versus rectum first strategy: a comparison of short-term outcomes

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical and Translational Oncology, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
Title
Oncological strategies for locally advanced rectal cancer with synchronous liver metastases, interval strategy versus rectum first strategy: a comparison of short-term outcomes
Published in
Clinical and Translational Oncology, December 2017
DOI 10.1007/s12094-017-1818-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

H. Salvador-Rosés, S. López-Ben, M. Casellas-Robert, P. Planellas, N. Gómez-Romeu, R. Farrés, E. Ramos, A. Codina-Cazador, J. Figueras

Abstract

The goal of treatment for patients with synchronous liver metastases (SLM) from rectal cancer is to achieve a complete resection of both tumor locations. For patients with symptomatic locally advanced rectal cancer with resectable SLM at diagnosis, our usual strategy has been the rectum first approach (RF). However, since 2014, we advocate for the interval approach (IS) that involves the administration of chemo-radiotherapy followed by the resection of the SLM in the interval of time between rectal cancer radiation and rectal surgery. From 2010 to 2016, 16 patients were treated according to this new strategy and 19 were treated according RF strategy. Data were collected prospectively and analyzed with an intention-to-treat perspective. Complete resection rate, duration of the treatment and morbi-mortality were the main outcomes. The complete resection rate in the IS was higher (100%, n = 16) compared to the RF (74%, n = 14, p = 0.049) and the duration of the strategy was shorter (6 vs. 9 months, respectively, p = 0.006). The incidence of severe complications after liver surgery was 14% (n = 2) in the RF and 0% in the IS (p = 1.000), and after rectal surgery was 24% (n = 4) and 12% (n = 2), respectively (p = 1.000). The IS is a feasible and safe strategy that procures higher level of complete resection rate in a shorter period of time compared to RF strategy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor 4 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Other 2 8%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 9 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 58%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Unknown 10 38%
Attention Score in Context

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 29 December 2017.
All research outputs
#14,307,981
of 23,015,156 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Translational Oncology
#604
of 1,321 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#237,467
of 440,933 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Translational Oncology
#22
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,015,156 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,321 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 440,933 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.