↓ Skip to main content

Appropriate customization of radiation therapy for stage II and III rectal cancer: Executive summary of an ASTRO Clinical Practice Statement using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method

Overview of attention for article published in Practical Radiation Oncology, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#10 of 405)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
12 news outlets
twitter
20 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
Title
Appropriate customization of radiation therapy for stage II and III rectal cancer: Executive summary of an ASTRO Clinical Practice Statement using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method
Published in
Practical Radiation Oncology, May 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.prro.2015.11.014
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karyn A. Goodman, Caroline E. Patton, George A. Fisher, Sarah E. Hoffe, Michael G. Haddock, Parag J. Parikh, John Kim, Nancy N. Baxter, Brian G. Czito, Theodore S. Hong, Joseph M. Herman, Christopher H. Crane, Karen E. Hoffman

Abstract

To summarize results of a Clinical Practice Statement on radiation therapy for stage II-III rectal cancer, which addressed appropriate customization of (neo)adjuvant radiation therapy and use of non-surgical therapy for patients who are inoperable or refuse abdominoperineal resection. The RAND/University of California, Los Angeles, Appropriateness Method was applied to combine current evidence with multidisciplinary expert opinion. A systematic literature review was conducted and used by the expert panel to rate appropriateness of radiation therapy options for different clinical scenarios. Treatments were categorized by median rating as Appropriate, May Be Appropriate, or Rarely Appropriate. In the neoadjuvant setting, chemoradiation was rated Appropriate and the ratings indicated short-course radiation therapy, chemotherapy alone, and no neoadjuvant therapy are potential options in selected patients. However, neoadjuvant endorectal brachytherapy was rated Rarely Appropriate. For adjuvant therapy, chemoradiation (plus ≥4 months of chemotherapy) was rated Appropriate and chemotherapy alone May Be Appropriate for most scenarios. For medically inoperable patients, definitive external beam radiation therapy and chemotherapy alone were rated May Be Appropriate, whereas endorectal brachytherapy and chemoradiation plus endorectal brachytherapy were possible approaches for some scenarios. The last option, definitive chemoradiation, was rated Appropriate to May Be Appropriate based on performance status. Finally, for patients with low-lying tumors refusing abdominoperineal resection, definitive chemoradiation alone, chemoradiation plus endorectal brachytherapy, and chemoradiation plus external beam radiation therapy were all rated Appropriate. This Clinical Practice Statement demonstrated the central role of radiation therapy in stage II-III rectal cancer management and evaluated ways to better individualize its use in the neoadjuvant, adjuvant, and definitive settings. Ongoing trials may clarify areas of continuing uncertainty and allow further customization.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 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 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 3%
Unknown 29 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 33%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 17%
Other 4 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 10%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Other 6 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 77%
Unspecified 6 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 101. 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 May 2017.
All research outputs
#143,231
of 12,871,560 outputs
Outputs from Practical Radiation Oncology
#10
of 405 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,420
of 332,383 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Practical Radiation Oncology
#1
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,871,560 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 405 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 332,383 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.