↓ Skip to main content

Paving the Road for Modern Particle Therapy – What Can We Learn from the Experience Gained with Fast Neutron Therapy in Munich?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in oncology, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
28 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
Paving the Road for Modern Particle Therapy – What Can We Learn from the Experience Gained with Fast Neutron Therapy in Munich?
Published in
Frontiers in oncology, November 2015
DOI 10.3389/fonc.2015.00262
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hanno M. Specht, Teresa Neff, Waltraud Reuschel, Franz M. Wagner, Severin Kampfer, Jan J. Wilkens, Winfried Petry, Stephanie E. Combs

Abstract

While neutron therapy was a highly topical subject in the 70s and 80s, today there are only a few remaining facilities offering fast neutron therapy (FNT). Nevertheless, up to today more than 30,000 patients were treated with neutron therapy. For some indications like salivary gland tumors and malignant melanoma, there is clinical evidence that the addition of FNT leads to superior local control compared to photon treatment alone. FNT was available in Munich from 1985 until 2000 at the Reactor Neutron Therapy (RENT) facility. Patient treatment continued at the new research reactor FRM II in 2007 under improved treatment conditions, and today it can still be offered to selected patients as an individual treatment option. As there is a growing interest in high-linear energy transfer (LET) therapy with new hadron therapy centers emerging around the globe, the clinical data generated by neutron therapy might help to develop biologically driven treatment planning algorithms. Also FNT might experience its resurgence as a combinational partner of modern immunotherapies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 25%
Student > Master 4 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 14%
Professor 3 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 11%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 4 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Physics and Astronomy 10 36%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 4%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 7 25%
Attention Score in Context

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 27 November 2015.
All research outputs
#20,656,820
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in oncology
#11,313
of 22,416 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#290,574
of 394,406 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in oncology
#57
of 81 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 394,406 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 81 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.