| Title |
Indistinguishable T2/T3-N0 rectal cancer on rectal magnetic resonance imaging: comparison of surgery-first and neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy-first strategies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Colorectal Disease, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00384-018-3131-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jun Gon Kim, Kyoung Doo Song, Dong Ik Cha, Hee Cheol Kim, Jeong Il Yu |
| Abstract |
We compared the treatment outcome between surgery-first and neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (nCRT)-first strategies in patients with indistinguishable T2/T3-N0 rectal cancer on rectal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Our institutional review board approved this retrospective study, and informed consent was waived. Among 1910 patients who underwent rectal MRI between 2008 and 2012, 79 patients (mean age, 59.4 years, 49 men and 30 women) who had indistinguishable T2/T3-N0 rectal cancer on rectal MRI were included. Local recurrence-free survival (LRFS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), overall survival (OS), and disease-specific survival (DSS) were compared between the two groups. Treatment-related complications were evaluated. Among 79 patients, 51 were treated by surgery first and 28 were treated by nCRT first. In comparison of survival of the surgery- and nCRT-first groups at 5 years, the LRFS rate was 95.6 and 96.3%, RFS rate was 91.0 and 92.4%, OS rate was 93.7 and 92.6%, and DSS rate was 98.0 and 92.6%, respectively. LRFS, RFS, OS, and DSS showed no significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.862, 0.677, 0.953, and 0.479). The complication rate was not significantly different between the groups (20.0% for surgery-first group vs. 10.7% for nCRT-first group, p = 0.357). Treatment outcomes were not significantly different between surgery-first and nCRT-first strategies for indistinguishable T2/T3-N0 rectal cancer on rectal MRI. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 21% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 11% |
| Brazil | 1 | 5% |
| Libya | 1 | 5% |
| Mexico | 1 | 5% |
| Guatemala | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 9 | 47% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 9 | 47% |
| Members of the public | 7 | 37% |
| Scientists | 2 | 11% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 10 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 20% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 20% |
| Other | 1 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 4 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 60% |
| Unknown | 4 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 18 July 2018.
All research outputs
#3,080,655
of 24,615,949 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Colorectal Disease
#78
of 1,909 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,674
of 332,029 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Colorectal Disease
#4
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,615,949 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,909 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 332,029 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.