↓ Skip to main content

Risk groups in bladder cancer patients treated with radical cystectomy

Overview of attention for article published in International Brazilian Journal of Urology, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 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.
Title
Risk groups in bladder cancer patients treated with radical cystectomy
Published in
International Brazilian Journal of Urology, January 2015
DOI 10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2015.01.06
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eva Mallen, Pedro Gil, Maria Jesus Gil

Abstract

To stratify patients with bladder cancer into homogeneous risk groups according to statistically significant differences found in PFS (progression-free survival). To identify those patients at increased risk of progression and to provide oncological follow-up according to patient risk group. A retrospective study of 563 patients treated with radical cystectomy (RC). In order to determine which factors might predict bladder tumour progression and death, uni- and multivariate analyses were performed. The risk groups were identified according to "inter-category" differences found in PFS and lack of differences, thus revealing intra-category homogeneity. Median follow up time was 37.8 months. Recurrence occurred in a total of 219 patients (38, 9 %). In 63 % of cases this was distant recurrence. Only two variables retained independent prognostic value in the multivariate analysis for PFS: pathological organ confinement and lymph node involvement. By combining these two variables, we created a new ″risk group ″ variable. In this second model it was found that the new variable behaved as an independent predictor associated with PFS. Four risk groups were identified: very low, low, intermediate and high risk: • Very low risk: pT0 N0 • Low risk: pTa, pTis, pT1, pT2 and pN0 • Intermediate risk: pT3 and pN0 • High risk: pT4 N0 or pN1-3. We retrospectively identified 4 risk groups with an independent prognostic value for progression-free survival following RC. Differences in recurrence patterns after RC between risk groups have led us to set different intervals in monitoring for cancer.

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 readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 44%
Student > Master 4 25%
Student > Postgraduate 2 13%
Researcher 1 6%
Unknown 2 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 13%
Computer Science 1 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 6%
Sports and Recreations 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 4 25%
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 01 May 2015.
All research outputs
#17,728,493
of 25,984,873 outputs
Outputs from International Brazilian Journal of Urology
#365
of 736 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#223,583
of 362,484 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Brazilian Journal of Urology
#33
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,984,873 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 736 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 362,484 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.