↓ Skip to main content

The Current and Future Treatment of Brain Metastases

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Surgery, May 2016
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 (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
93 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
The Current and Future Treatment of Brain Metastases
Published in
Frontiers in Surgery, May 2016
DOI 10.3389/fsurg.2016.00030
Pubmed ID
Authors

Douglas A. Hardesty, Peter Nakaji

Abstract

Brain metastases are the most common intracranial malignancy, accounting for significant morbidity and mortality in oncology patients. The current treatment paradigm for brain metastasis depends on the patient's overall health status, the primary tumor pathology, and the number and location of brain lesions. Herein, we review the modern management options for these tumors, including surgical resection, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy. Recent operative advances, such as fluorescence, confocal microscopy, and brachytherapy, are highlighted. With an increased understanding of the pathophysiology of brain metastasis come increased future therapeutic options. Therapy targeted to specific tumor molecular pathways, such as those involved in blood-brain barrier transgression, cell-cell adhesion, and angiogenesis, are also reviewed. A personalized plan for each patient, based on molecular characterizations of the tumor that are used to better target radiotherapy and chemotherapy, is undoubtedly the future of brain metastasis treatment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
Unknown 91 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 14%
Researcher 11 12%
Student > Bachelor 11 12%
Other 10 11%
Student > Postgraduate 9 10%
Other 19 20%
Unknown 20 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 34%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 8%
Neuroscience 6 6%
Computer Science 4 4%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 29 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 12 July 2019.
All research outputs
#2,887,790
of 22,873,031 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Surgery
#76
of 2,892 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,354
of 335,850 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Surgery
#3
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,873,031 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,892 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. 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 335,850 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 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.