↓ Skip to main content

Metastasectomy, intralesional resection, or stabilization only in the treatment of bone metastases from renal cell carcinoma

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Surgical Oncology, May 2016
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
Metastasectomy, intralesional resection, or stabilization only in the treatment of bone metastases from renal cell carcinoma
Published in
Journal of Surgical Oncology, May 2016
DOI 10.1002/jso.24284
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The mainstay of treatment for bone metastases from renal cell carcinoma is surgery. We assessed if there was a difference in local recurrence, reoperation, and survival between patients who underwent metastasectomy, intralesional curettage, or stabilization only for renal cell carcinoma metastasis to the appendicular skeleton, and if there was a difference in these outcomes based on margin status. This retrospective study included 183 patients; 48% underwent metastasectomy (n = 88, margins: 64 negative; 20 positive; 4 unclear), 30% intralesional curettage (n = 54), and 22% stabilization only (n = 41). The recurrence rate differed and was highest after stabilization only (39%), followed by intralesional curettage (22%), and metastasectomy (12%) (P = 0.003). However, we found no difference in reoperation rate (P = 0.847). Survival was better in patients who underwent metastasectomy (P = 0.020). The recurrence rate was lower in patients who had a negative margin (5%) as compared to those with a positive margin (26%) (P < 0.001). However, we found no difference in reoperation rate (P = 0.97). Negative margins showed better survival (P < 0.001). Our findings emphasize the importance of obtaining negative margins in patients with a good life expectancy, as lower recurrence rate can be attained at a not significant additional risk for reoperation, with a potential impact on survival. J. Surg. Oncol. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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 %
Other 4 16%
Student > Master 4 16%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 8%
Researcher 2 8%
Other 4 16%
Unknown 7 28%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 56%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 8%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Unknown 8 32%
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 09 May 2016.
All research outputs
#24,529,092
of 27,265,592 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Surgical Oncology
#824
of 1,005 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#273,274
of 314,737 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Surgical Oncology
#28
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,265,592 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,005 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 314,737 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.