↓ Skip to main content

Hyperbaric oxygenation for tumour sensitisation to radiotherapy

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
12 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
141 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
Hyperbaric oxygenation for tumour sensitisation to radiotherapy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005007.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael H Bennett, John Feldmeier, Robert Smee, Christopher Milross

Abstract

Cancer is a common disease and radiotherapy is one well-established treatment for some solid tumours. Hyperbaric oxygenation therapy (HBOT) may improve the ability of radiotherapy to kill hypoxic cancer cells, so the administration of radiotherapy while breathing hyperbaric oxygen may result in a reduction in mortality and recurrence. To assess the benefits and harms of administering radiotherapy for the treatment of malignant tumours while breathing HBO. In September 2017 we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Library Issue 8, 2017, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Database of Randomised Trials in Hyperbaric Medicine using the same strategies used in 2011 and 2015, and examined the reference lists of included articles. Randomised and quasi-randomised studies comparing the outcome of malignant tumours following radiation therapy while breathing HBO versus air or an alternative sensitising agent. Three review authors independently evaluated the quality of and extracted data from the included trials. We included 19 trials in this review (2286 participants: 1103 allocated to HBOT and 1153 to control).For head and neck cancer, there was an overall reduction in the risk of dying at both one year and five years after therapy (risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 0.98, number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 11 and RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.98, high-quality evidence), and some evidence of improved local tumour control immediately following irradiation (RR with HBOT 0.58, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.85, moderate-quality evidence due to imprecision). There was a lower incidence of local recurrence of tumour when using HBOT at both one and five years (RR at one year 0.66, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.78, high-quality evidence; RR at five years 0.77, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.95, moderate-quality evidence due to inconsistency between trials). There was also some evidence with regard to the chance of metastasis at five years (RR with HBOT 0.45 95% CI 0.09 to 2.30, single trial moderate quality evidence imprecision). No trials reported a quality of life assessment. Any benefits come at the cost of an increased risk of severe local radiation reactions with HBOT (severe radiation reaction RR 2.64, 95% CI 1.65 to 4.23, high-quality evidence). However, the available evidence failed to clearly demonstrate an increased risk of seizures from acute oxygen toxicity (RR 4.3, 95% CI 0.47 to 39.6, moderate-quality evidence).For carcinoma of the uterine cervix, there was no clear benefit in terms of mortality at either one year or five years (RR with HBOT at one year 0.88, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.11, high-quality evidence; RR at five years 0.95, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.14, moderate-quality evidence due to inconsistency between trials). Similarly, there was no clear evidence of a benefit of HBOT in the reported rate of local recurrence (RR with HBOT at one year 0.82, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.06, high-quality evidence; RR at five years 0.85, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.13, moderate-quality evidence due to inconsistency between trials). We also found no clear evidence for any effect of HBOT on the rate of development of metastases at both two years and five years (two years RR with HBOT 1.05, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.31, high quality evidence; five years RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.26, moderate-quality evidence due to inconsistency). There were, however, increased adverse effects with HBOT. The risk of a severe radiation injury at the time of treatment with HBOT was 2.05, 95% CI 1.22 to 3.46, high-quality evidence. No trials reported any failure of local tumour control, quality of life assessments, or the risk of seizures during treatment.With regard to the treatment of urinary bladder cancer, there was no clear evidence of a benefit in terms of mortality from HBOT at one year (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.27, high-quality evidence), nor any benefit in the risk of developing metastases at two years (RR 2.0, 95% CI 0.58 to 6.91, moderate-quality evidence due to imprecision). No trial reported on failure of local control, local recurrence, quality of life, or adverse effects.When all cancer types were combined, there was evidence for an increased risk of severe radiation tissue injury during the course of radiotherapy with HBOT (RR 2.35, 95% CI 1.66 to 3.33, high-quality evidence) and of oxygen toxic seizures during treatment (RR with HBOT 6.76, 96% CI 1.16 to 39.31, moderate-quality evidence due to imprecision). We found evidence that HBOT improves local tumour control, mortality, and local tumour recurrence for cancers of the head and neck. These benefits may only occur with unusual fractionation schemes. Hyperbaric oxygenation therapy is associated with severe tissue radiation injury. Given the methodological and reporting inadequacies of the included studies, our results demand a cautious interpretation. More research is needed for head and neck cancer, but is probably not justified for uterine cervical or bladder cancer. There is little evidence available concerning malignancies at other anatomical sites.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 141 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 2%
Spain 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Unknown 136 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 19%
Researcher 20 14%
Student > Bachelor 18 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 10%
Other 10 7%
Other 27 19%
Unknown 25 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 56 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 9%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Other 17 12%
Unknown 32 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 18 April 2020.
All research outputs
#1,794,627
of 15,902,381 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,424
of 11,321 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,344
of 281,382 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#108
of 197 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,902,381 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,321 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 281,382 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 197 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.