↓ Skip to main content

Predicting Residual Disease in Incidental Gallbladder Cancer: Risk Stratification for Modified Treatment Strategies

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
25 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
Predicting Residual Disease in Incidental Gallbladder Cancer: Risk Stratification for Modified Treatment Strategies
Published in
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery, May 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11605-017-3436-8
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Re-operation is advised for patients with T1b or greater incidental gallbladder cancer (GBCA). The presence of residual disease (RD) impacts resectability, chemotherapy, and survival. This study created a preoperative model to predict RD at re-operation. Patients with re-operation for incidental GBCA from 1992-2015 were included. The relationship between pathology data from initial cholecystectomy and RD at re-operation was assessed with logistic regression and classification and regression tree (CART) analysis. Two hundred fifty-four patients were included and 188 underwent definitive re-resection (74.0%). Distant RD was identified in 69 (27.2%) patients and locoregional only RD in 82 (32.3%). On multivariate analysis, T3 (OR 22.7, 95% CI 5.5-94.4) and poorly differentiated tumors (OR 4.3, 95% CI 1.4-13.3) were associated with RD (p < 0.001-0.012). AUC of multivariate model was 0.78 (95% CI 0.72-0.83). CART analysis split patients into groups based on percentage with RD: 87% RD with T3, 67% RD with T1b/T2 and poorly differentiated, and 35% RD with T1b/T2 and well/moderate differentiated tumors. Based on T stage and grade from cholecystectomy, this study developed a model for predicting RD at re-operation in incidental GBCA. This model delineates patient groups with variable percentages of RD and could be used to stratify high-risk patients for prospective trials.

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 profile of 1 X user 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 25 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 %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor > Associate Professor 3 12%
Other 2 8%
Researcher 2 8%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 4%
Librarian 1 4%
Other 4 16%
Unknown 12 48%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 40%
Environmental Science 1 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Computer Science 1 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 11 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 29 July 2017.
All research outputs
#17,302,400
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery
#1,568
of 2,489 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#207,263
of 324,889 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery
#29
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,489 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 324,889 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.