↓ Skip to main content

Lung cancer: a 6-field technique using lateral beams in conformal radiotherapy for bilateral supraclavicular lymph node metastases

Overview of attention for article published in SpringerPlus, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
reddit
1 Redditor

Readers on

mendeley
2 Mendeley
Title
Lung cancer: a 6-field technique using lateral beams in conformal radiotherapy for bilateral supraclavicular lymph node metastases
Published in
SpringerPlus, December 2014
DOI 10.1186/2193-1801-3-733
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shinichi Tsutsumi, Takuhito Tada, Tomoko Maekado, Masahiro Tokunaga, Noriko Tanaka, Ai Kobayashi, Eiichiro Okazaki, Shougo Matsuda, Masako N Hosono, Yukio Miki

Abstract

A 6-field technique using lateral beams in conformal radiotherapy was developed for patients with bilateral supraclavicular lymph node metastasis of lung cancer. The possibility of using this technique in practice was evaluated. Six fields with the same isocenter point (IP) were arranged. Two fields using anterior-posterior opposed beams involved all of the planning target volume (PTV). The next 2 fields using off-cord oblique beams involved the PTV inferior to the IP. The remaining 2 fields using lateral opposed beams, that shielded the spinal cord, involved the PTV superior to the IP. The oblique 2 fields and lateral 2 fields were connected using a half-beam technique. In 6 patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC, n = 4) or small-cell lung cancer (SCLC, n = 2), treatment re-planning based on this technique was performed. This technique was applicable in 4 patients with NSCLC, in whom the general criteria of radiotherapy for lung cancer were met. In 2 patients with SCLC, the cumulative volume of lung that received more than 20 Gy exceeded 37% of the total lung volume. This technique was usable in 67% of the patients and was not necessarily contraindicated in the other 33%.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 2 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 50%
Researcher 1 50%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 2 100%
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 04 June 2023.
All research outputs
#15,588,794
of 23,933,166 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#855
of 1,854 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#205,439
of 360,732 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#42
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,933,166 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 1,854 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 360,732 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.