↓ Skip to main content

RETRACTED: Neoadjuvant Therapy for Esophageal Adenocarcinoma in the Community Setting—Practice and Outcomes

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 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
RETRACTED: Neoadjuvant Therapy for Esophageal Adenocarcinoma in the Community Setting—Practice and Outcomes
Published in
Frontiers in oncology, July 2017
DOI 10.3389/fonc.2017.00151
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joe Abdo, Carrie A. Bertellotti, David L. Cornell, Devendra K. Agrawal, Sumeet K. Mittal

Abstract

There has been an alarming rise in the incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma which continues to have poor survival rates primarily due to lack of effective chemotherapy and presentation at advanced stages. Over a dozen chemotherapeutic agents are FDA approved for esophageal cancer (EC), and a two or three-drug combination is typically prescribed as first-line therapy for the majority of EC patients, administered either pre or post-operatively with esophageal resection. We have noticed significant variability in adjuvant and neoadjuvant regimens used in the community setting. The aim of this study was to review the various drug regimens used in the neoadjuvant setting for EC patients with adenocarcinoma undergoing resection at a single tertiary referral center in the Midwest. A total of 123 patients (stage II-III) underwent esophageal resection after neoadjuvant treatment at the center. Overall, 18 distinct drug regimens were used in 123 patients including two patients who received targeted therapy. Median survival post-surgery for this group was 11.2 months with no single regimen offering a survival advantage. These results reveal an unclear algorithm of how accepted regimens are prescribed in the community setting as well as a dire need for agents that are more effective. Additionally, it was noted that although proteomic markers have been found to predict drug response to 92% of the FDA-approved drugs in EC (12 of 13), according to pathology reports, molecular diagnostic testing was not used to direct treatment in this cohort. We therefore propose potential strategies to improve clinical outcomes including the use of a robust molecular oncology diagnostic panel and discuss the potential role for targeted chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy in the management of EC patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 13%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Researcher 2 8%
Other 2 8%
Other 5 21%
Unknown 7 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 33%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Computer Science 1 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 10 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 01 April 2018.
All research outputs
#2,556,569
of 25,932,719 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in oncology
#604
of 22,839 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,872
of 329,789 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in oncology
#5
of 79 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,932,719 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,839 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 329,789 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 79 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.