↓ Skip to main content

Carbon Ion Radiotherapy: A Review of Clinical Experiences and Preclinical Research, with an Emphasis on DNA Damage/Repair

Overview of attention for article published in Cancers, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (57th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
86 Mendeley
Title
Carbon Ion Radiotherapy: A Review of Clinical Experiences and Preclinical Research, with an Emphasis on DNA Damage/Repair
Published in
Cancers, June 2017
DOI 10.3390/cancers9060066
Pubmed ID
Authors

Osama Mohamad, Brock Sishc, Janapriya Saha, Arnold Pompos, Asal Rahimi, Michael Story, Anthony Davis, D.W. Kim

Abstract

Compared to conventional photon-based external beam radiation (PhXRT), carbon ion radiotherapy (CIRT) has superior dose distribution, higher linear energy transfer (LET), and a higher relative biological effectiveness (RBE). This enhanced RBE is driven by a unique DNA damage signature characterized by clustered lesions that overwhelm the DNA repair capacity of malignant cells. These physical and radiobiological characteristics imbue heavy ions with potent tumoricidal capacity, while having the potential for simultaneously maximally sparing normal tissues. Thus, CIRT could potentially be used to treat some of the most difficult to treat tumors, including those that are hypoxic, radio-resistant, or deep-seated. Clinical data, mostly from Japan and Germany, are promising, with favorable oncologic outcomes and acceptable toxicity. In this manuscript, we review the physical and biological rationales for CIRT, with an emphasis on DNA damage and repair, as well as providing a comprehensive overview of the translational and clinical data using CIRT.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 86 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 22%
Student > Master 15 17%
Researcher 10 12%
Student > Bachelor 10 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 8%
Other 14 16%
Unknown 11 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Physics and Astronomy 21 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 20 23%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 9%
Engineering 7 8%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 17 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 26 July 2017.
All research outputs
#6,158,724
of 11,522,893 outputs
Outputs from Cancers
#279
of 806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,672
of 268,905 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancers
#19
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,522,893 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 806 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 268,905 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 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 64% of its contemporaries.