↓ Skip to main content

Early Gastrointestinal Cancers II: Rectal Cancer

Overview of attention for book
Cover of 'Early Gastrointestinal Cancers II: Rectal Cancer'

Table of Contents

  1. Altmetric Badge
    Book Overview
  2. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 1 Imaging Assessment of Early Rectal Cancer
  3. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 2 Predicting Lymph Node Metastases in pT1 Rectal Cancer
  4. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 3 Endoscopic Resection: When Is EMR/ESD Sufficient?
  5. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 4 Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery
  6. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 5 What Is “Good Quality” in Rectal Cancer Surgery? The Pathologist’s Perspective
  7. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 6 Total Mesorectal Excision: Open, Laparoscopic or Robotic
  8. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 7 Ultra Low Resection Versus Abdomino-Perineal Excision in Low Rectal Cancer
  9. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 8 T4 Rectal Cancer: Do We Always Need an Exenteration?
  10. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 9 Do t3 rectal cancers always need radiochemotherapy?
  11. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 10 Quality of Life After Surgery for Rectal Cancer
  12. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 11 Aims of Combined Modality Therapy in Rectal Cancer (M0)
  13. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 12 Neoadjuvant Radiotherapy (5 × 5 Gy): Immediate Versus Delayed Surgery
  14. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 13 Early and Late Toxicity of Radiotherapy for Rectal Cancer
  15. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 14 Immediate Surgery or Clinical Follow-Up After a Complete Clinical Response?
  16. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 15 Limits of Colorectal Liver Metastases Resectability: How and Why to Overcome Them?
  17. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 16 Rectal Cancer with Synchronous Liver Metastases: Leave It All in? When (not) to Resect the Primary?
  18. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 17 Recurrence Patterns After Resection of Liver Metastases from Colorectal Cancer
Attention for Chapter 9: Do t3 rectal cancers always need radiochemotherapy?
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 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.
Chapter title
Do t3 rectal cancers always need radiochemotherapy?
Chapter number 9
Book title
Early Gastrointestinal Cancers II: Rectal Cancer
Published in
Recent results in cancer research Fortschritte der Krebsforschung Progrès dans les recherches sur le cancer, August 2014
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-08060-4_9
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-3-31-908059-8, 978-3-31-908060-4
Authors

Glynne-Jones R, Rob Glynne-Jones, Glynne-Jones, Rob

Abstract

The limitation of the traditional method of stratifying patients with rectal cancer for prognosis using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computerised tomography (CT)-TNM staging-is that cT3 tumors comprise the vast majority of rectal cancers. There is a wide variability in outcomes for cT3. Despite this observation, many still advocate routine short course preoperative radiotherapy (SCPRT) or chemoradiation (CRT) for all patients staged as cT3N0 regardless of tumour location, proximity to other structures or extent, despite the fact that advances in imaging with MRI now offer the ability to predict potential outcomes in terms of the risk of local and metastatic recurrence for the individual. Preoperative CRT is designed to reduce local recurrence. The majority of local recurrences historically reflected inadequate quality of the mesorectal resection. Currently, optimal quality-controlled surgery in terms of total mesorectal excision (TME) in the trial setting can be associated with much lower local recurrence rates of less than 10 % whether patients receive radiotherapy or not. Because of the high risk of metastatic disease in selected patients, integrating more active chemotherapy is now attractive. Chemoradiotherapy (CRT) achieves shrinkage and sometimes eradication of tumour-i.e. a pathological complete response (pCR), and reduces local recurrence, but has no impact on overall survival. CRT also increases surgical morbidity and impacts on anorectal, urinary and sexual function with an increased risk of second malignancies. Hence, the predominant aims of CRT have been to shrink/downstage a tumour to allow an R0 resection to be performed, or to increase the chances of performing sphincter-sparing surgery. However, it remains unclear why shrinkage/downstaging is meaningful to a patient unless the tumour is initially borderline resectable or unresectable (i.e. the CRM is threatened) or the aim is to perform a lesser operation (i.e. sphincter-sparing or local excision) or for organ-sparing, i.e. to avoid surgery altogether. If it is important to shrink the cancer-ie there is a predicted threat to the CRM, then CRT is currently the treatment of choice. If the cancer is resectable and the aim is simply to lower the risk of local recurrence and preoperative CRT does not impact on survival, can CRT be omitted in selected cases? The answer is yes-with the proviso that we are using good quality MRI and the surgeon is performing good quality TME surgery within the mesorectal plane.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 28%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 16%
Student > Master 5 16%
Other 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 3 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 72%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Neuroscience 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Unknown 5 16%
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 18 August 2014.
All research outputs
#15,303,896
of 22,760,687 outputs
Outputs from Recent results in cancer research Fortschritte der Krebsforschung Progrès dans les recherches sur le cancer
#96
of 171 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#133,642
of 231,138 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Recent results in cancer research Fortschritte der Krebsforschung Progrès dans les recherches sur le cancer
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,760,687 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 171 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 231,138 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them