↓ Skip to main content

Prostate motion during radiotherapy of prostate cancer patients with and without application of a hydrogel spacer: a comparative study

Overview of attention for article published in Radiation Oncology, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Readers on

mendeley
35 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
Prostate motion during radiotherapy of prostate cancer patients with and without application of a hydrogel spacer: a comparative study
Published in
Radiation Oncology, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13014-015-0526-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Prabhjot Juneja, Andrew Kneebone, Jeremy T. Booth, David I. Thwaites, Ramandeep Kaur, Emma Colvill, Jin A. Ng, Paul J. Keall, Thomas Eade

Abstract

The use of a tissue expander (hydrogel) for sparing of the rectum from increased irradiation during prostate radiotherapy is becoming popular. The goal of this study is to investigate the effect of a tissue expander (hydrogel) on the intrafraction prostate motion during radiotherapy. Real time prostate motion was analysed for 26 patients and 742 fractions; 12 patients with and 14 patients without hydrogel (SpaceOAR™). The intra-fraction motion was quantified and compared between the two groups. The average (±standard deviation) of the mean motion during the treatment for patients with and without hydrogel was 1.5 (±0.8 mm) and 1.1 (±0.9 mm) respectively (p < 0.05). The average time of motion >3 mm for patients with and without hydrogel was 7.7 % (±1.1 %) and 4.5 % (±0.9 %) respectively (p > 0.05). The hydrogel age, fraction number and treatment time were found to have no effect (R (2)  < 0.05) on the prostate motion. Differences in intrafraction motion in patients with hydrogel and without hydrogel were within measurement uncertainty (<1 mm). This result confirms that the addition of a spacer does not negate the need for intrafraction motion management if clinically indicated.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 29%
Other 6 17%
Researcher 5 14%
Student > Postgraduate 4 11%
Professor 2 6%
Other 6 17%
Unknown 2 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 40%
Physics and Astronomy 4 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Computer Science 2 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Other 6 17%
Unknown 5 14%

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 24 October 2015.
All research outputs
#5,456,703
of 6,405,271 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#898
of 998 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#154,985
of 197,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#50
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 6,405,271 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 998 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 197,359 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.