↓ Skip to main content

A critical review of recent developments in radiotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Radiation Oncology, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#18 of 2,065)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
11 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Readers on

mendeley
267 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
A critical review of recent developments in radiotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer
Published in
Radiation Oncology, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13014-016-0693-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarah Baker, Max Dahele, Frank J. Lagerwaard, Suresh Senan

Abstract

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality, and radiotherapy plays a key role in both curative and palliative treatments for this disease. Recent advances include stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR), which is now established as a curative-intent treatment option for patients with peripheral early-stage NSCLC who are medically inoperable, or at high risk for surgical complications. Improved delivery techniques have facilitated studies evaluating the role of SABR in oligometastatic NSCLC, and encouraged the use of high-technology radiotherapy in some palliative settings. Although outcomes in locally advanced NSCLC remain disappointing for many patients, future progress may come about from an improved understanding of disease biology and the development of radiotherapy approaches that further reduce normal tissue irradiation. At the moment, the benefits, if any, of radiotherapy technologies such as proton beam therapy remain unproven. This paper provides a critical review of selected aspects of modern radiotherapy for lung cancer, highlights the current limitations in our understanding and treatment approaches, and discuss future treatment strategies for NSCLC.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 267 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Unknown 265 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 42 16%
Student > Bachelor 38 14%
Other 33 12%
Student > Master 30 11%
Researcher 28 10%
Other 34 13%
Unknown 62 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 92 34%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 22 8%
Physics and Astronomy 22 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 3%
Other 29 11%
Unknown 80 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 May 2022.
All research outputs
#1,572,776
of 22,953,506 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#18
of 2,065 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,112
of 335,095 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#2
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,953,506 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,065 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. 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 335,095 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 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 97% of its contemporaries.