↓ Skip to main content

Neoadjuvant Radiation Therapy in Locally Advanced Colon Cancer: a Cohort Analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
Title
Neoadjuvant Radiation Therapy in Locally Advanced Colon Cancer: a Cohort Analysis
Published in
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery, February 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11605-018-3676-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Devi Mukkai Krishnamurty, Alexander T Hawkins, Katerina O Wells, Matthew G Mutch, Mathew L Silviera, Sean C Glasgow, Steven R Hunt, Sekhar Dharmarajan

Abstract

A paucity of data exists in the use of neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (NRT) for T4, non-metastatic colon cancer. This study was conducted to determine the effect of NRT on outcomes after resection for T4 colon cancer. All patients with non-metastatic resected clinical T4 colon cancer from 2000 to 2012 at a tertiary care center were included. The cohort was divided into two groups-those that received NRT and those that did not (non-NRT). The primary outcomes were margin-negative resection and overall survival (OS). One hundred and thirty-one consecutive patients with non-metastatic clinical T4 colon cancer with a mean age of 65 years were included. NRT was used in 23 patients (17.4%). NRT group was noted to have non-statistically significant improvement in R0 resection rate (NRT 95.7% vs non-NRT 88.0%; p = 0.27) and local recurrence (NRT 4.3% vs non-NRT 15.7%; p = 0.15). There was a significant difference in T-stage downstaging between the two groups (NRT 30.4% vs non-NRT 6.5%; p = 0.007). In a bivariate analysis, NRT was associated with improved 5-year OS (NRT 76.4% vs non-NRT 51.5%; p = 0.03). This relationship did not persist in a Cox proportional hazard analysis that included age and comorbidity (HR 2.19; 95% CI 0.87-5.52; p = 0.09). The use of NRT in locally advanced T4 colon cancer is safe and associated with increased downstaging. While there was a trend toward improvement in local recurrence and the ability to obtain margin-negative resections in the NRT group, this was not significant. Significantly improved overall survival was not observed in a multivariable analysis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 6 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 18%
Student > Bachelor 5 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Lecturer 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 10 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 42%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 6%
Unspecified 1 3%
Environmental Science 1 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 12 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 08 June 2018.
All research outputs
#19,962,154
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery
#1,745
of 2,489 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#327,159
of 451,691 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery
#27
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,489 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 451,691 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.