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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Intensity modulated arc therapy implementation in a three phase adaptive 18F-FDG-PET voxel intensity-based planning strategy for head-and-neck cancer
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Radiation Oncology, April 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13014-016-0629-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Dieter Berwouts, Luiza Ana Maria Olteanu, Bruno Speleers, Frédéric Duprez, Indira Madani, Tom Vercauteren, Wilfried De Neve, Werner De Gersem |
| Abstract |
This study investigates the implementation of a new intensity modulated arc therapy (IMAT) class solution in comparison to a 6-static beam step-and-shoot intensity modulated radiotherapy (s-IMRT) for three-phase adaptive (18)F-FDG-PET-voxel-based dose-painting-by-numbers (DPBN) for head-and-neck cancer. We developed (18)F-FDG-PET-voxel intensity-based IMAT employing multiple arcs and compared it to clinically used s-IMRT DPBN. Three IMAT plans using (18)F-FDG-PET/CT acquired before treatment (phase I), after 8 fractions (phase II) and CT acquired after 18 fractions (phase III) were generated for each of 10 patients treated with 3 s-IMRT plans based on the same image sets. Based on deformable image registration (ABAS, version 0.41, Elekta CMS Software, Maryland Heights, MO), doses of the 3 plans were summed on the pretreatment CT using validated in-house developed software. Dosimetric indices in targets and organs-at-risk (OARs), biologic conformity of treatment plans set at ≤5 %, treatment quality and efficiency were compared between IMAT and s-IMRT for the whole group and for individual patients. Doses to most organs-at-risk (OARs) were significantly better in IMAT plans, while target levels were similar for both types of plans. On average, IMAT ipsilateral and contralateral parotid mean doses were 14.0 % (p = 0.001) and 12.7 % (p < 0.001) lower, respectively. Pharyngeal constrictors D50% levels were similar or reduced with up to 54.9 % for IMAT compared to s-IMRT for individual patient cases. IMAT significantly improved biologic conformity by 2.1 % for treatment phases I and II. 3D phantom measurements reported an agreement of ≥95 % for 3 % and 3 mm criteria for both treatment modalities. IMAT delivery time was significantly shortened on average by 41.1 %. IMAT implementation significantly improved the biologic conformity as compared to s-IMRT in adaptive dose-escalated DPBN treatments. The better OAR sparing and faster delivery highly improved the treatment efficiency. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Belgium | 1 | 50% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 40 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 23% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 20% |
| Researcher | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 13% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Other | 7 | 18% |
| Unknown | 2 | 5% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 35% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 20% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 3 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Psychology | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 13% |
| Unknown | 6 | 15% |
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 13 August 2016.
All research outputs
#18,449,393
of 22,858,915 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#1,414
of 2,059 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#219,909
of 300,331 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#35
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,858,915 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,059 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 300,331 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.