↓ Skip to main content

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for ultra-central lung tumors: prioritize target coverage or organs at risk?

Overview of attention for article published in Radiation Oncology, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 Mendeley
Title
Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for ultra-central lung tumors: prioritize target coverage or organs at risk?
Published in
Radiation Oncology, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13014-018-1001-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Donna H. Murrell, Joanna M. Laba, Abigail Erickson, Barbara Millman, David A. Palma, Alexander V. Louie

Abstract

Lung stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is associated with low morbidity, however there is an increased risk of treatment-related toxicity in tumors directly abutting or invading the proximal bronchial tree, termed 'ultra-central' tumors. As there is no consensus regarding the optimal radiotherapy treatment regimen for these tumors, we performed a modeling study to evaluate the trade-offs between predicted toxicity and local control for commonly used high-precision dose-fractionation regimens. Ten patients with ultra-central lung tumors were identified from our institutional database. New plans were generated for 3 different hypofractionated schemes: 50 Gy in 5 fractions, 60 Gy in 8 fractions and 60 Gy in 15 fractions. For each regimen, one plan was created that prioritized planning target volume (PTV) coverage, potentially at the expense of organ at risk (OAR) tolerance, and a second that compromised PTV coverage to respect OAR dose constraints. Published radiobiological models were employed to evaluate competing treatment plans based on estimates for local control and the likelihood for toxicity to OAR. The risk of esophageal or pulmonary toxicity was low (< 5%) in all scenarios. When PTV coverage was prioritized, tumor control probabilities were 92.9% for 50 Gy in 5 fractions, 92.4% for 60 Gy in 8 fractions, and 52.0% for 60 Gy in 15 fractions; however the estimated risk of grade ≥ 4 toxicity to the proximal bronchial tree was 68%, 44% and 2% respectively. When dose to OAR was prioritized, the risk of major pulmonary toxicity was reduced to < 1% in all schemes, but this compromise reduced tumor control probability to 60.3% for 50 Gy in 5 fractions, 65.7% for 60 Gy in 8 fractions and 47.8% for 60 Gy in 15 fractions. The tradeoff between local control and central airway toxicity are considerable in the use of 3 commonly used hypofractionated radiotherapy regimens for ultra-central lung cancer. The results of this planning study predict that the best balance may be achieved with 60 Gy in 8 fractions compromising PTV coverage as required to maintain acceptable doses to OAR. A prospective phase I trial (SUNSET) is planned to further evaluate this challenging clinical scenario.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 61 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 18%
Other 6 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 8%
Student > Postgraduate 5 8%
Student > Master 5 8%
Other 12 20%
Unknown 17 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 48%
Physics and Astronomy 4 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Unspecified 1 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 24 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 09 June 2021.
All research outputs
#5,609,913
of 23,041,514 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#220
of 2,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#97,553
of 328,966 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#8
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,041,514 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,072 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 328,966 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.