↓ Skip to main content

Integrating Hyperthermia into Modern Radiation Oncology: What Evidence Is Necessary?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in oncology, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
119 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
171 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
Integrating Hyperthermia into Modern Radiation Oncology: What Evidence Is Necessary?
Published in
Frontiers in oncology, June 2017
DOI 10.3389/fonc.2017.00132
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jan C. Peeken, Peter Vaupel, Stephanie E. Combs

Abstract

Hyperthermia (HT) is one of the hot topics that have been discussed over decades. However, it never made its way into primetime. The basic biological rationale of heat to enhance the effect of radiation, chemotherapeutic agents, and immunotherapy is evident. Preclinical work has confirmed this effect. HT may trigger changes in perfusion and oxygenation as well as inhibition of DNA repair mechanisms. Moreover, there is evidence for immune stimulation and the induction of systemic immune responses. Despite the increasing number of solid clinical studies, only few centers have included this adjuvant treatment into their repertoire. Over the years, abundant prospective and randomized clinical data have emerged demonstrating a clear benefit of combined HT and radiotherapy for multiple entities such as superficial breast cancer recurrences, cervix carcinoma, or cancers of the head and neck. Regarding less investigated indications, the existing data are promising and more clinical trials are currently recruiting patients. How do we proceed from here? Preclinical evidence is present. Multiple indications benefit from additional HT in the clinical setting. This article summarizes the present evidence and develops ideas for future research.

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 171 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 171 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 16%
Researcher 23 13%
Student > Master 19 11%
Student > Bachelor 15 9%
Other 15 9%
Other 29 17%
Unknown 42 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 25%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 15 9%
Engineering 14 8%
Physics and Astronomy 12 7%
Chemistry 6 4%
Other 32 19%
Unknown 50 29%
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 30 June 2017.
All research outputs
#22,764,772
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in oncology
#15,925
of 22,428 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#286,713
of 327,487 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in oncology
#69
of 80 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,428 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 327,487 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 80 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.