| Title |
Standardization of definitions in focal therapy of prostate cancer: report from a Delphi consensus project
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
World Journal of Urology, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00345-016-1782-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
A. W. Postema, T. M. De Reijke, O. Ukimura, W. Van den Bos, A. R. Azzouzi, E. Barret, D. Baumunk, A. Blana, A. Bossi, M. Brausi, J. A. Coleman, S. Crouzet, J. Dominguez-Escrig, S. Eggener, R. Ganzer, S. Ghai, I. S. Gill, R. T. Gupta, T. O. Henkel, M. Hohenfellner, J. S. Jones, F. Kahmann, C. Kastner, K. U. Köhrmann, G. Kovacs, R. Miano, R. J. van Moorselaar, N. Mottet, L. Osorio, B. R. Pieters, T. J. Polascik, A. R. Rastinehad, G. Salomon, R. Sanchez-Salas, M. Schostak, L. Sentker, K. J. Tay, I. M. Varkarakis, A. Villers, J. Walz, J. J. De la Rosette |
| Abstract |
To reach standardized terminology in focal therapy (FT) for prostate cancer (PCa). A four-stage modified Delphi consensus project was undertaken among a panel of international experts in the field of FT for PCa. Data on terminology in FT was collected from the panel by three rounds of online questionnaires. During a face-to-face meeting on June 21, 2015, attended by 38 experts, all data from the online rounds were reviewed and recommendations for definitions were formulated. Consensus was attained on 23 of 27 topics; Targeted FT was defined as a lesion-based treatment strategy, treating all identified significant cancer foci; FT was generically defined as an anatomy-based (zonal) treatment strategy. Treatment failure due to the ablative energy inadequately destroying treated tissue is defined as ablation failure. In targeting failure the energy is not adequately applied to the tumor spatially and selection failure occurs when a patient was wrongfully selected for FT. No definition of biochemical recurrence can be recommended based on the current data. Important definitions for outcome measures are potency (minimum IIEF-5 score of 21), incontinence (new need for pads or leakage) and deterioration in urinary function (increase in IPSS >5 points). No agreement on the best quality of life tool was established, but UCLA-EPIC and EORTC-QLQ-30 were most commonly supported by the experts. A complete overview of statements is presented in the text. Focal therapy is an emerging field of PCa therapeutics. Standardization of definitions helps to create comparable research results and facilitate clear communication in clinical practice. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 3 | 33% |
| France | 2 | 22% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 11% |
| Canada | 1 | 11% |
| United States | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 1 | 11% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 44% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 22% |
| Scientists | 2 | 22% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 89 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 15 | 17% |
| Other | 11 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 8% |
| Other | 21 | 24% |
| Unknown | 16 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 43 | 48% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 4% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 2% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 7% |
| Unknown | 28 | 31% |
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 13 March 2017.
All research outputs
#6,154,928
of 25,225,928 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Urology
#597
of 2,301 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,106
of 304,332 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Urology
#6
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,225,928 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 2,301 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 304,332 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 32 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.