↓ Skip to main content

A treatment planning study of proton arc therapy for para-aortic lymph node tumors: dosimetric evaluation of conventional proton therapy, proton arc therapy, and intensity modulated radiotherapy

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 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 treatment planning study of proton arc therapy for para-aortic lymph node tumors: dosimetric evaluation of conventional proton therapy, proton arc therapy, and intensity modulated radiotherapy
Published in
Radiation Oncology, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13014-016-0717-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeong-Eun Rah, Gwe-Ya Kim, Do Hoon Oh, Tae Hyun Kim, Jong Won Kim, Dae Yong Kim, Sung Yong Park, Dongho Shin

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the dosimetric benefits of a proton arc technique for treating tumors of the para-aortic lymph nodes (PALN). In nine patients, a proton arc therapy (PAT) technique was compared with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and proton beam therapy (PBT) techniques with respect to the planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risk (OAR). PTV coverage, conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI) and OAR doses were compared. Organ-specific radiation induced cancer risks were estimated by applying organ equivalent dose (OED) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP). The PAT techniques showed better PTV coverage than IMRT and PBT plans. The CI obtained with PAT was 1.19 ± 0.02, which was significantly better than that for the IMRT techniques. The HI was lowest for the PAT plan and highest for IMRT. The dose to the OARs was always below the acceptable limits and comparable for all three techniques. OED results calculated based on a plateau dose-response model showed that the risk of secondary cancers in organs was much higher when IMRT or PBT were employed than when PAT was used. NTCPs of PAT to the stomach (0.29 %), small bowel (0.69 %) and liver (0.38 %) were substantially lower than those of IMRT and PBT. This study demonstrates that there is a potential role for PAT as a commercialized instrument in the future to proton therapy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 24%
Student > Master 2 6%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Librarian 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 9 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Physics and Astronomy 8 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 24%
Engineering 5 15%
Chemistry 1 3%
Unknown 11 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 06 November 2016.
All research outputs
#14,275,152
of 22,893,031 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#808
of 2,060 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#179,493
of 316,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#10
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,893,031 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,060 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 316,323 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.