↓ Skip to main content

Fraction size in radiation therapy for breast conservation in early breast cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
31 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
96 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
Fraction size in radiation therapy for breast conservation in early breast cancer
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003860.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hickey, Brigid E, James, Melissa L, Lehman, Margot, Hider, Phil N, Jeffery, Mark, Francis, Daniel P, See, Adrienne M

Abstract

Shortening the duration of radiation therapy would benefit women with early breast cancer treated with breast conserving surgery. It may also improve access to radiation therapy by improving efficiency in radiation oncology departments globally. This can only happen if the shorter treatment is as effective and safe as conventional radiation therapy. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2008 and updated in 2009. To assess the effect of altered radiation fraction size for women with early breast cancer who have had breast conserving surgery. We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Specialised Register (23 May 2015), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 4), MEDLINE (Jan 1996 to May 2015), EMBASE (Jan 1980 to May 2015), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal (June 2010 to May 2015) and ClinicalTrials.gov (16 April 2015), reference lists of articles and relevant conference proceedings. No language or publication constraints were applied. Randomised controlled trials of altered fraction size versus conventional fractionation for radiation therapy in women with early breast cancer who had undergone breast conserving surgery. Two authors performed data extraction independently, with disagreements resolved by discussion. We sought missing data from trial authors. We studied 8228 women in nine studies. Eight out of nine studies were at low or unclear risk of bias. Altered fraction size (delivering radiation therapy in larger amounts each day but over fewer days than with conventional fractionation) did not have a clinically meaningful effect on: local recurrence-free survival (Hazard Ratio (HR) 0.94, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.15, 7095 women, four studies, high-quality evidence), cosmetic outcome (Risk ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.01, 2103 women, four studies, high-quality evidence) or overall survival (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.03, 5685 women, three studies, high-quality evidence). Acute radiation skin toxicity (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.45, 357 women, two studies) was reduced with altered fraction size. Late radiation subcutaneous toxicity did not differ with altered fraction size (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.05, 5130 women, four studies, high-quality evidence). Breast cancer-specific survival (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.06, 5685 women, three studies, high quality evidence) and relapse-free survival (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.05, 5685 women, three studies, moderate-quality evidence) did not differ with altered fraction size. We found no data for mastectomy rate. Altered fraction size was associated with less patient-reported (P < 0.001) and physician-reported (P = 0.009) fatigue at six months (287 women, one study). We found no difference in the issue of altered fractionation for patient-reported outcomes of: physical well-being (P = 0.46), functional well-being (P = 0.38), emotional well-being (P = 0.58), social well-being (P = 0.32), breast cancer concerns (P = 0.94; 287 women, one study). We found no data with respect to costs. We found that using altered fraction size regimens (greater than 2 Gy per fraction) does not have a clinically meaningful effect on local recurrence, is associated with decreased acute toxicity and does not seem to affect breast appearance, late toxicity or patient-reported quality-of-life measures for selected women treated with breast conserving therapy. These are mostly women with node negative tumours smaller than 3 cm and negative pathological margins.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 31 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 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 2%
United Kingdom 2 2%
Slovenia 1 1%
Unknown 91 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 17%
Researcher 15 16%
Other 9 9%
Unspecified 8 8%
Other 28 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 51 53%
Unspecified 12 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 6%
Psychology 6 6%
Other 13 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. 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 16 June 2017.
All research outputs
#376,606
of 12,100,779 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#672
of 7,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,332
of 266,743 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#17
of 110 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,100,779 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,978 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 266,743 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 110 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.