↓ Skip to main content

Future directions in combined modality therapy for rectal cancer: reevaluating the role of total mesorectal excision after chemoradiotherapy

Overview of attention for article published in OncoTargets and therapy, August 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

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.
Title
Future directions in combined modality therapy for rectal cancer: reevaluating the role of total mesorectal excision after chemoradiotherapy
Published in
OncoTargets and therapy, August 2013
DOI 10.2147/ott.s34869
Pubmed ID
Authors

Abhishek A Solanki, Daniel T Chang, Stanley L Liauw

Abstract

Most patients who develop rectal cancer present with locoregionally advanced (T3 or node-positive) disease. The standard management of locoregionally advanced rectal cancer is neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy (nCRT), followed by radical resection (low-anterior resection or abdominoperineal resection with total mesorectal excision). Approximately 15% of patients can have a pathologic complete response (pCR) at the time of surgery, indicating that some patients can have no detectable residual disease after nCRT. The actual benefit of surgery in this group of patients is unclear. It is possible that omission of surgery in these patients, termed selective nonoperative management, can limit the toxicities associated with standard, multimodal combined modality therapy without compromising disease control. In this review, we discuss the clinical experiences to date using selective nonoperative management and various attempts at escalation of nCRT to improve the number of patients who have a pCR. We also explore several clinical, laboratory, imaging, histopathologic, and genetic biomarkers that have been tested as tools to predict which patients are most likely to have a pCR after nCRT.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

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.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 4%
Unknown 24 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 12%
Researcher 3 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 12%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Other 9 36%
Unknown 3 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 76%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Computer Science 1 4%
Unknown 4 16%
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 12 November 2013.
All research outputs
#17,286,379
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from OncoTargets and therapy
#1,146
of 3,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#132,644
of 210,078 outputs
Outputs of similar age from OncoTargets and therapy
#18
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 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 3,016 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 210,078 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.