↓ Skip to main content

Update on Embolization Therapies for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Overview of attention for article published in Current Oncology Reports, April 2017
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 (74th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
Title
Update on Embolization Therapies for Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Published in
Current Oncology Reports, April 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11912-017-0597-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sirish Kishore, Tamir Friedman, David C. Madoff

Abstract

The purpose of the review is to summarize the latest applications for embolotherapy in the management of patients with HCC according to BCLC stage. While traditionally reserved for patients with unresectable HCC and stage B disease, there is an important role for embolization therapies in earlier stage patients as an adjunct to ablation, bridging, or downstaging therapy, as a means to improve safety of resection, and potentially as an arterial ablative option in the case of radioembolization. Newer applications of radioembolization such as radiation segmentectomy have the potential to provide cure in localized unifocal disease, and transarterial chemoembolization-portal vein embolization and radiation lobectomy may provide a combination of treatment and future liver remnant hypertrophy for planned hepatic resection. There is also an increasing role for embolization in the treatment of stage C disease, and recent data suggest it can be used in combination with sorafenib with the potential for survival benefit over sorafenib alone, even in the case of portal vein tumor thrombus. Embolization therapies play an increasingly important role in patients with BCLC stage A-C hepatocellular carcinoma. While different therapies may be offered on a patient-specific basis, there are limited prospective RCT data to support superiority of one technique over another.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 55 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 8 15%
Student > Master 7 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 11%
Researcher 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 15 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 53%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Unspecified 1 2%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 18 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 20 April 2018.
All research outputs
#4,229,935
of 23,043,346 outputs
Outputs from Current Oncology Reports
#143
of 890 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,789
of 310,466 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Oncology Reports
#3
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,043,346 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 890 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 310,466 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.