↓ Skip to main content

Radiation-Induced Cardiovascular Toxicity: Mechanisms, Prevention, and Treatment

Overview of attention for article published in Current Treatment Options in Cardiovascular Medicine, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
70 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 Mendeley
Title
Radiation-Induced Cardiovascular Toxicity: Mechanisms, Prevention, and Treatment
Published in
Current Treatment Options in Cardiovascular Medicine, March 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11936-018-0627-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Johan Spetz, Javid Moslehi, Kristopher Sarosiek

Abstract

Ionizing radiation is a highly effective treatment for a wide range of malignancies, yet the cardiovascular (CV) toxicity that can result from chest radiotherapy impairs the long-term health of cancer survivors and can be a limiting factor for its use. Despite over 100 years of successful clinical use, the mechanisms by which high-energy photons damage critical components within cells of the heart's myocardium, pericardium, vasculature, and valves remain unclear. Recent studies exploring the acute and chronic effects of radiation therapy on cardiac and vascular tissue have provided new insights into the development and progression of heart disease, including the identification and understanding of age- and complication-associated risk factors. However, key questions relating to the connection from upstream signaling to fibrotic changes remain. In addition, advances in the delivery of chest radiotherapy have helped to limit heart exposure and damage, but additional refinements to delivery techniques and cardioprotective therapeutics are absolutely necessary to reduce patient mortality and morbidity. Radiation therapy (RT)-driven CV toxicity remains a major issue for cancer survivors and more research is needed to define the precise mechanisms of toxicity. However, recent findings provide meaningful insights that may help improve patient outcomes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 63 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 13%
Student > Master 7 11%
Other 4 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 6%
Other 12 19%
Unknown 18 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 41%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 2%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 21 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 May 2018.
All research outputs
#6,365,621
of 22,790,780 outputs
Outputs from Current Treatment Options in Cardiovascular Medicine
#124
of 410 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#114,544
of 331,515 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Treatment Options in Cardiovascular Medicine
#8
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,790,780 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 410 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 331,515 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 65% 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.