↓ Skip to main content

Long‐term decision regret after post‐prostatectomy image‐guided intensity‐modulated radiotherapy

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Imaging & Radiation Oncology, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#8 of 1,177)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
twitter
14 X users

Readers on

mendeley
30 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
Long‐term decision regret after post‐prostatectomy image‐guided intensity‐modulated radiotherapy
Published in
Journal of Medical Imaging & Radiation Oncology, August 2016
DOI 10.1111/1754-9485.12508
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Decision regret (DR) may occur when a patient believes their outcome would have been better if they had decided differently about their management. Although some studies investigate DR after treatment for localised prostate cancer, none report DR in patients undergoing surgery and post-prostatectomy radiotherapy. We evaluated DR in this group of patients overall, and for specific components of therapy. We surveyed 83 patients, with minimum 5 years follow-up, treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) and post-prostatectomy image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IG-IMRT) to 64-66 Gy following www.EviQ.org.au protocols. A validated questionnaire identified DR if men either indicated that they would have been better off had they chosen another treatment, or they wished they could change their mind about treatment. There was an 85.5% response rate, with median follow-up post-IMRT 78 months. Adjuvant IG-IMRT was used in 28% of patients, salvage in 72% and ADT in 48%. A total of 70% of patients remained disease-free. Overall, 16.9% of patients expressed DR for treatment, with fourfold more regret for the RP component of treatment compared to radiotherapy (16.9% vs 4.2%, P = 0.01). DR for androgen deprivation was 14.3%. Patients were regretful of surgery due to toxicity, not being adequately informed about radiotherapy as an alternative, positive margins and surgery costs (83%, 33%, 25% and 8% of regretful patients respectively). Toxicity caused DR in the three radiotherapy-regretful and four ADT-regretful patients. Patients were twice as regretful overall, and of surgery, for salvage vs adjuvant approaches (both 19.6% vs 10.0%). Decision regret after RP and post-prostatectomy IG-IMRT is uncommon, although patients regret RP more than post-operative IG-IMRT. This should reassure urologists referring patients for post-prostatectomy IG-IMRT, particularly in the immediate adjuvant setting. Other implications include appropriate patient selection for RP (and obtaining clear margins), and ensuring adequately discussing definitive radiotherapy as an alternative to surgery.

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.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 17%
Researcher 5 17%
Student > Master 4 13%
Librarian 2 7%
Other 1 3%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 9 30%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Computer Science 1 3%
Sports and Recreations 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 10 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 35. 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 06 January 2021.
All research outputs
#1,444,291
of 33,953,699 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Imaging & Radiation Oncology
#8
of 1,177 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,002
of 314,157 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Imaging & Radiation Oncology
#1
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 33,953,699 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,177 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 314,157 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.