↓ Skip to main content

Computerized System for Staging Peritoneal Surface Malignancies

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Surgical Oncology, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
Title
Computerized System for Staging Peritoneal Surface Malignancies
Published in
Annals of Surgical Oncology, November 2015
DOI 10.1245/s10434-015-4966-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paolo Sammartino, Daniele Biacchi, Tommaso Cornali, Fabio Accarpio, Simone Sibio, Bernard Luraschi, Alessio Impagnatiello, Angelo Di Giorgio

Abstract

Peritoneal surface malignancies (PSMs) are usually staged using Sugarbaker's Peritoneal Cancer Index (PCI) and completeness of cytoreduction score (CC-s). Although these staging tools are essential for selecting patients and evaluating outcome after cytoreductive surgery (CRS) plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), both scoring models lack some anatomic information, thus making staging laborious and unreliable. Maintaining Sugarbaker's original concepts, we therefore developed a computerized digital tool, including a new anatomic scheme for calculating PCI and CC-s corresponding closely to patients' real anatomy. Our new anatomic model belongs in a web-based application known as the PSM Staging System, which contains essential clinical and pathological data for the various PSMs currently treated. The new digital tool for staging PSM runs on a personal computer or tablet and comprises male and female colored anatomic models for the 13 endoabdominal regions, with borders defined according to real anatomic landmarks. A drag-and-drop tool allows users to compute the PCI and CC-s, making it easier to localize and quantify disease at diagnosis and throughout treatment, and residual disease after CRS. Once tested online by registered users, our computerized application should provide a modern, shareable, comprehensive, user-friendly PSM staging system. Its anatomic features, along with the drag-and-drop tool, promise to make it easier to compare preoperative and postoperative PCIs, thus improving the criteria for selecting patients to undergo CRS plus HIPEC. By specifying the size, site, and number of residual lesions after CRS plus HIPEC, our digital tool should help stratify patients into outcome classes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 18%
Professor 3 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 9%
Student > Master 2 9%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 6 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 68%
Energy 1 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Unknown 5 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 2016.
All research outputs
#14,213,304
of 24,266,964 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#4,005
of 6,827 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#134,983
of 287,620 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#45
of 104 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,266,964 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,827 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 287,620 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 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 104 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.