↓ Skip to main content

Dosimetric impact of tumor treating field (TTField) transducer arrays onto treatment plans for glioblastomas – a planning study

Overview of attention for article published in Radiation Oncology, February 2018
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 (#39 of 2,073)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 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
Dosimetric impact of tumor treating field (TTField) transducer arrays onto treatment plans for glioblastomas – a planning study
Published in
Radiation Oncology, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13014-018-0976-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christoph Straube, Markus Oechsner, Severin Kampfer, Sophia Scharl, Friederike Schmidt-Graf, Jan J. Wilkens, Stephanie E. Combs

Abstract

Tumor-Treating Fields (TTFields) are a novel treatment strategy for glioblastoma (GBM) that is approved for the use concomitantly to adjuvant chemotherapy. Preclinical data suggest a synergistic interaction of TTFields and radiotherapy (RT). However, the dosimetric uncertainties caused by the highly dense arrays have led to caution of applying the TTF setup during RT. In a RW3 slab phantom we compared the MV- and kV-CT based planned dose with the measured dose. VMAT-plans were optimized on MV-CTs of an Alderson head phantom without TTF arrays and then re-calculated on the same phantom equipped with TTF arrays. Dose at organs at risk (OAR) and target volumes (PTVs) were compared. Measurements at a depth of 2, 3 and 4 cm of a RW 3 slab phantom show an attenuation due to TTField arrays of 3.4, 3.7 and 2.7% respectively. This was in-line with calculated attenuations based on MV-CT (1.2, 2.5 and 2.5%) but not with the attenuation expected from kV-CT based calculations (7.1, 8.2 and 8.6%). Consecutive MV-CT based VMAT planning and re-calculation reveals, that the conformity and homogeneity are not affected by the presence of TTField arrays. The dose at organs at risk (OAR) can show increases or decreases by < 0.5 Gy, which should be considered especially in cases next to the scull base. MV-CT based dose calculation results in reliable dose distributions also in the presence of TTField arrays. There is a small but clinically not relevant interaction between the TTField arrays and VMAT dose application. Thus, daily replacement of TTField arrays is not necessary in regard to deeply located OARs. RT is feasible, when a VMAT treatment plan is optimized to an array free planning CT. As the biologic effect of a concomitant treatment especially on OARs is currently unknown, a concomitant treatment should be performed only within clinical trials.

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 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 22%
Researcher 4 13%
Other 2 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 12 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 34%
Engineering 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Psychology 1 3%
Physics and Astronomy 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 13 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 25 February 2018.
All research outputs
#2,129,368
of 23,025,074 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#39
of 2,073 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,246
of 330,329 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#5
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,025,074 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,073 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 330,329 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.