↓ Skip to main content

Factors affecting outcomes following pelvic exenteration for locally recurrent rectal cancer

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of Surgery, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
80 X users
guideline
1 clinical guideline source

Readers on

mendeley
98 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
Factors affecting outcomes following pelvic exenteration for locally recurrent rectal cancer
Published in
British Journal of Surgery, March 2018
DOI 10.1002/bjs.10734
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Pelvic exenteration for locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) is associated with variable outcomes, with the majority of data from single-centre series. This study analysed data from an international collaboration to determine robust parameters that could inform clinical decision-making. Anonymized data on patients who had pelvic exenteration for LRRC between 2004 and 2014 were accrued from 27 specialist centres. The primary endpoint was survival. The impact of resection margin, bone resection, node status and use of neoadjuvant therapy (before exenteration) was assessed. Of 1184 patients, 614 (51·9 per cent) had neoadjuvant therapy. A clear resection margin (R0 resection) was achieved in 55·4 per cent of operations. Twenty-one patients (1·8 per cent) died within 30 days and 380 (32·1 per cent) experienced a major complication. Median overall survival was 36 months following R0 resection, 27 months after R1 resection and 16 months following R2 resection (P < 0·001). Patients who received neoadjuvant therapy had more postoperative complications (unadjusted odds ratio (OR) 1·53), readmissions (unadjusted OR 2·33) and radiological reinterventions (unadjusted OR 2·12). Three-year survival rates were 48·1 per cent, 33·9 per cent and 15 per cent respectively. Bone resection (when required) was associated with a longer median survival (36 versus 29 months; P < 0·001). Node-positive patients had a shorter median overall survival than those with node-negative disease (22 versus 29 months respectively). Multivariable analysis identified margin status and bone resection as significant determinants of long-term survival. Negative margins and bone resection (where needed) were identified as the most important factors influencing overall survival. Neoadjuvant therapy before pelvic exenteration did not affect survival, but was associated with higher rates of readmission, complications and radiological reintervention.

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 80 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 98 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 98 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 15 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 8%
Student > Master 7 7%
Researcher 7 7%
Professor 5 5%
Other 17 17%
Unknown 39 40%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 51 52%
Engineering 3 3%
Unspecified 2 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Arts and Humanities 1 1%
Other 2 2%
Unknown 37 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 51. 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 27 June 2026.
All research outputs
#1,064,317
of 34,609,551 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of Surgery
#325
of 8,176 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,316
of 379,575 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of Surgery
#28
of 121 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,609,551 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,176 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 379,575 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 121 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.