| Title |
Serous endometrial intraepithelial carcinoma: a case series and literature review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cancer Management and Research, June 2013
|
| DOI | 10.2147/cmar.s45141 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
P Pathiraja, S Dhar, K Haldar |
| Abstract |
Minimal uterine serous cancer (MUSC) or serous endometrial intraepithelial carcinoma (EIC) has been described by many different names since 1998. There have been very few cases reported in literature since EIC/MUSC was recognized as a separate entity. The World health Organization (WHO) Classification favors the term serous EIC. Although serous EIC is confined to the uterine endometrium at initial histology diagnosis, a significant number of patients could have distal metastasis at diagnosis, without symptoms. Serous EIC is considered as being the precursor of uterine serous cancer (USC), but pure serous EIC also has an aggressive behavior similar to USC. It is therefore prudent to have an accurate diagnosis and appropriate surgical staging. There are very few published articles in literature that discuss the pure form of serous EIC. The aim of this series is to share our experience and review evidence for optimum management of serous EIC. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Turkey | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 31 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 5 | 16% |
| Researcher | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 9% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 6% |
| Professor | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 19% |
| Unknown | 10 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 56% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 9% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 10 | 31% |
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 16 July 2013.
All research outputs
#20,823,121
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Management and Research
#1,116
of 2,067 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#157,231
of 206,928 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Management and Research
#9
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,067 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 206,928 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.