↓ Skip to main content

Radiation therapy quality in CCG/POG intergroup 9961: implications for craniospinal irradiation and the posterior fossa boost in future medulloblastoma trials

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in oncology, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 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
Radiation therapy quality in CCG/POG intergroup 9961: implications for craniospinal irradiation and the posterior fossa boost in future medulloblastoma trials
Published in
Frontiers in oncology, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fonc.2012.00185
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bernadine Donahue, Mary A. H. Marymont, Sandra Kessel, Matthew K. Iandoli, Thomas FitzGerald, Emiko Holmes, Mehmet Kocak, James M. Boyett, Amar Gajjar, Roger J. Packer

Abstract

Purpose: Associations of radiation therapy (RT) deviations and outcomes in medulloblastoma have not been defined well, particularly in the era of reduced-dose craniospinal irradiation and chemotherapy. The aim of this study is to evaluate the quality of RT on Children's Cancer Group/Pediatric Oncology Group 9961 and analyze associations of RT deviations with outcome. Materials and Methods: Major volume deviations were assessed based on the distance from specified anatomical region to field edge. We investigated associations of RT deviations with progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and explored associations with demographics and clinical variables. Results: Of the 308 patients who were evaluable for volume deviations, 101 patients (33%) did not have any. Of the remaining 207 patients, 50% had only minor deviations, 29% had only major deviations, and 21% had both minor and major deviations. Of the patients with major deviations, 73% had a single major deviation. The most common major deviation was in the cribriform plate region, followed by the posterior fossa (PF); PF deviations resulted from treating less than whole PF. There were no significant differences in PFS or OS between patients with deviations and those without. There was no evidence of associations of deviations with patient age. Conclusions: Approximately one-third of patients had major volume deviations. There was no evidence of a significant association between these and outcome. This lack of correlation likely reflects the current high quality of RT delivered in Children's Oncology Group institutions, our strict definition of volume deviations, and the relatively few instances of multiple major deviations in individual patients. In is noteworthy that the types of PF volume deviations observed in this study were not adversely associated with outcome. As we move forward, quality assurance will continue to play an important role to ensure that deviations on study do not influence study outcome.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 6%
Canada 1 6%
Unknown 15 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 24%
Other 2 12%
Student > Bachelor 2 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 6%
Other 4 24%
Unknown 2 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 47%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 12%
Unspecified 1 6%
Neuroscience 1 6%
Social Sciences 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 4 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 07 January 2013.
All research outputs
#16,722,190
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in oncology
#6,609
of 22,416 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#168,822
of 250,100 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in oncology
#59
of 161 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,416 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 250,100 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 161 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.