{rfName}
Fo

Indexed in

License and use

Citations

85

Altmetrics

Analysis of institutional authors

Munoz, FgAuthor
Share
Publications
>
Article

Follow-up after radiological intervention in oncology: ECIO-ESOI evidence and consensus-based recommendations for clinical practice

Publicated to:Insights Into Imaging. 11 (1): 83- - 2020-07-16 11(1), DOI: 10.1186/s13244-020-00884-5

Authors: Maas, M; Beets-Tan, R; Gaubert, JY; Munoz, FG; Habert, P; Klompenhouwer, LG; Morgado, PV; Schaefer, N; Cornelis, FH; Solomon, SB; van der Reijd, D; Bilbao, JI

Affiliations

Aix Marseille Univ, LIIE, Marseille, France - Author
CHU Hosp Timone, Dept Radiol, Marseille, France - Author
Hosp Clin Barcelona, Dept Radiol, Barcelona, Spain - Author
Lausanne Univ Hosp, Dept Radiol, Lausanne, Switzerland - Author
Mem Sloan Kettering Canc Ctr, Dept Radiol, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY 10021 USA - Author
Netherlands Canc Inst, Dept Radiol, Amsterdam, Netherlands - Author
S Joao Univ Hosp, Dept Radiol, Porto, Portugal - Author
Univ Clin Navarra, Dept Radiol, Calle Benjamin Tudela 2, Navarra 31008, Spain - Author
See more

Abstract

Interventional radiology plays an important and increasing role in cancer treatment. Follow-up is important to be able to assess treatment success and detect locoregional and distant recurrence and recommendations for follow-up are needed. At ECIO 2018, a joint ECIO-ESOI session was organized to establish follow-up recommendations for oncologic intervention in liver, renal, and lung cancer. Treatments included thermal ablation, TACE, and TARE. In total five topics were evaluated: ablation in colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), TARE in CRLM, TACE and TARE in HCC, ablation in renal cancer, and ablation in lung cancer. Evaluated modalities were FDG-PET-CT, CT, MRI, and (contrast-enhanced) ultrasound. Prior to the session, five experts were selected and performed a systematic review and presented statements, which were voted on in a telephone conference prior to the meeting by all panelists. These statements were presented and discussed at the ECIO-ESOI session at ECIO 2018. This paper presents the recommendations that followed from these initiatives. Based on expert opinions and the available evidence, follow-up schedules were proposed for liver cancer, renal cancer, and lung cancer. FDG-PET-CT, CT, and MRI are the recommended modalities, but one should beware of false-positive signs of residual tumor or recurrence due to inflammation early after the intervention. There is a need for prospective preferably multicenter studies to validate new techniques and new response criteria. This paper presents recommendations that can be used in clinical practice to perform the follow-up of patients with liver, lung, and renal cancer who were treated with interventional locoregional therapies.

Keywords
interventional radiologyliverlung canceroncologyCell lung-cancerColorectal liver metastasesDiffusion-weighted mriDrug-eluting beadsHepatocellular-carcinomaInterventional radiologyLiverLocal tumor progressionLung cancerOncologyPercutaneous radiofrequency ablationPositron-emission-tomographyRecommendationsResponse evaluation criteriaTranscatheter arterial chemoembolization

Quality index

Bibliometric impact. Analysis of the contribution and dissemination channel

The work has been published in the journal Insights Into Imaging due to its progression and the good impact it has achieved in recent years, according to the agency WoS (JCR), it has become a reference in its field. In the year of publication of the work, 2020, it was in position 23/133, thus managing to position itself as a Q1 (Primer Cuartil), in the category Radiology, Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging.

From a relative perspective, and based on the normalized impact indicator calculated from World Citations provided by WoS (ESI, Clarivate), it yields a value for the citation normalization relative to the expected citation rate of: 1.54. This indicates that, compared to works in the same discipline and in the same year of publication, it ranks as a work cited above average. (source consulted: ESI Nov 14, 2024)

This information is reinforced by other indicators of the same type, which, although dynamic over time and dependent on the set of average global citations at the time of their calculation, consistently position the work at some point among the top 50% most cited in its field:

  • Field Citation Ratio (FCR) from Dimensions: 11.9 (source consulted: Dimensions May 2025)

Specifically, and according to different indexing agencies, this work has accumulated citations as of 2025-05-25, the following number of citations:

  • WoS: 26
  • Scopus: 43
  • Europe PMC: 16
  • OpenCitations: 41
Impact and social visibility

From the perspective of influence or social adoption, and based on metrics associated with mentions and interactions provided by agencies specializing in calculating the so-called "Alternative or Social Metrics," we can highlight as of 2025-05-25:

  • The use, from an academic perspective evidenced by the Altmetric agency indicator referring to aggregations made by the personal bibliographic manager Mendeley, gives us a total of: 62.
  • The use of this contribution in bookmarks, code forks, additions to favorite lists for recurrent reading, as well as general views, indicates that someone is using the publication as a basis for their current work. This may be a notable indicator of future more formal and academic citations. This claim is supported by the result of the "Capture" indicator, which yields a total of: 62 (PlumX).

With a more dissemination-oriented intent and targeting more general audiences, we can observe other more global scores such as:

  • The Total Score from Altmetric: 5.8.
  • The number of mentions on the social network X (formerly Twitter): 10 (Altmetric).

It is essential to present evidence supporting full alignment with institutional principles and guidelines on Open Science and the Conservation and Dissemination of Intellectual Heritage. A clear example of this is:

  • The work has been submitted to a journal whose editorial policy allows open Open Access publication.
Leadership analysis of institutional authors

This work has been carried out with international collaboration, specifically with researchers from: France; Netherlands; Portugal; Switzerland; United States of America.