↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
patent
1 patent
facebook
2 Facebook pages
guideline
1 clinical guideline source

Readers on

mendeley
168 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Therapeutic Impact of Cytoreductive Surgery and Irradiation of Posterior Fossa Ependymoma in the Molecular Era: A Retrospective Multicohort Analysis
Published in
Journal of Clinical Oncology, June 2016
DOI 10.1200/jco.2015.65.7825
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vijay Ramaswamy, Thomas Hielscher, Stephen C Mack, Alvaro Lassaletta, Tong Lin, Kristian W Pajtler, David T W Jones, Betty Luu, Florence M G Cavalli, Kenneth Aldape, Marc Remke, Martin Mynarek, Stefan Rutkowski, Sridharan Gururangan, Roger E McLendon, Eric S Lipp, Christopher Dunham, Juliette Hukin, David D Eisenstat, Dorcas Fulton, Frank K H van Landeghem, Mariarita Santi, Marie-Lise C van Veelen, Erwin G Van Meir, Satoru Osuka, Xing Fan, Karin M Muraszko, Daniela P C Tirapelli, Sueli M Oba-Shinjo, Suely K N Marie, Carlos G Carlotti, Ji Yeoun Lee, Amulya A Nageswara Rao, Caterina Giannini, Claudia C Faria, Sofia Nunes, Jaume Mora, Ronald L Hamilton, Peter Hauser, Nada Jabado, Kevin Petrecca, Shin Jung, Luca Massimi, Massimo Zollo, Giuseppe Cinalli, László Bognár, Almos Klekner, Tibor Hortobágyi, Sarah Leary, Ralph P Ermoian, James M Olson, Jeffrey R Leonard, Corrine Gardner, Wieslawa A Grajkowska, Lola B Chambless, Jason Cain, Charles G Eberhart, Sama Ahsan, Maura Massimino, Felice Giangaspero, Francesca R Buttarelli, Roger J Packer, Lyndsey Emery, William H Yong, Horacio Soto, Linda M Liau, Richard Everson, Andrew Grossbach, Tarek Shalaby, Michael Grotzer, Matthias A Karajannis, David Zagzag, Helen Wheeler, Katja von Hoff, Marta M Alonso, Teresa Tuñon, Ulrich Schüller, Karel Zitterbart, Jaroslav Sterba, Jennifer A Chan, Miguel Guzman, Samer K Elbabaa, Howard Colman, Girish Dhall, Paul G Fisher, Maryam Fouladi, Amar Gajjar, Stewart Goldman, Eugene Hwang, Marcel Kool, Harshad Ladha, Elizabeth Vera-Bolanos, Khalida Wani, Frank Lieberman, Tom Mikkelsen, Antonio M Omuro, Ian F Pollack, Michael Prados, H Ian Robins, Riccardo Soffietti, Jing Wu, Phillipe Metellus, Uri Tabori, Ute Bartels, Eric Bouffet, Cynthia E Hawkins, James T Rutka, Peter Dirks, Stefan M Pfister, Thomas E Merchant, Mark R Gilbert, Terri S Armstrong, Andrey Korshunov, David W Ellison, Michael D Taylor

Abstract

Posterior fossa ependymoma comprises two distinct molecular variants termed EPN_PFA and EPN_PFB that have a distinct biology and natural history. The therapeutic value of cytoreductive surgery and radiation therapy for posterior fossa ependymoma after accounting for molecular subgroup is not known. Four independent nonoverlapping retrospective cohorts of posterior fossa ependymomas (n = 820) were profiled using genome-wide methylation arrays. Risk stratification models were designed based on known clinical and newly described molecular biomarkers identified by multivariable Cox proportional hazards analyses. Molecular subgroup is a powerful independent predictor of outcome even when accounting for age or treatment regimen. Incompletely resected EPN_PFA ependymomas have a dismal prognosis, with a 5-year progression-free survival ranging from 26.1% to 56.8% across all four cohorts. Although first-line (adjuvant) radiation is clearly beneficial for completely resected EPN_PFA, a substantial proportion of patients with EPN_PFB can be cured with surgery alone, and patients with relapsed EPN_PFB can often be treated successfully with delayed external-beam irradiation. The most impactful biomarker for posterior fossa ependymoma is molecular subgroup affiliation, independent of other demographic or treatment variables. However, both EPN_PFA and EPN_PFB still benefit from increased extent of resection, with the survival rates being particularly poor for subtotally resected EPN_PFA, even with adjuvant radiation therapy. Patients with EPN_PFB who undergo gross total resection are at lower risk for relapse and should be considered for inclusion in a randomized clinical trial of observation alone with radiation reserved for those who experience recurrence.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 168 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 162 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 26 15%
Other 19 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 8%
Student > Bachelor 14 8%
Student > Master 13 8%
Other 38 23%
Unknown 44 26%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 65 39%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 17 10%
Neuroscience 10 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 1%
Other 8 5%
Unknown 57 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 16 May 2024.
All research outputs
#5,052,822
of 34,457,357 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Oncology
#12,004
of 32,547 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,023
of 344,658 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Oncology
#168
of 570 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,457,357 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 32,547 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 344,658 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 570 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 70% of its contemporaries.