| Title |
Comparative diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FDG PET/CT for breast cancer recurrence
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Breast cancer targets and therapy, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/bctt.s111098 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Roberta Piva, Flavia Ticconi, Valentina Ceriani, Federica Scalorbi, Francesco Fiz, Selene Capitanio, Matteo Bauckneht, Giuseppe Cittadini, Gianmario Sambuceti, Silvia Morbelli |
| Abstract |
In the last decades, in addition to conventional imaging techniques and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG PET/CT) has been shown to be relevant in the detection and management of breast cancer recurrence in doubtful cases in selected groups of patients. While there are no conclusive data indicating that imaging tests, including FDG PET/CT, produce a survival benefit in asymptomatic patients, FDG PET/CT can be useful for identifying the site of relapse when traditional imaging methods are equivocal or conflicting and for identifying or confirming isolated loco-regional relapse or isolated metastatic lesions. The present narrative review deals with the potential role of FDG PET in these clinical settings by comparing its accuracy and impact with conventional imaging modalities such as CT, ultrasound, bone scan, (18)F-sodium fluoride PET/CT ((18)F-NaF PET/CT) as well as MRI. Patient-focused perspectives in terms of patients' satisfaction and acceptability are also discussed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 49 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 12% |
| Researcher | 5 | 10% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 8 | 16% |
| Unknown | 17 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 41% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 6% |
| Psychology | 3 | 6% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 2% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 19 | 39% |
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 10 October 2017.
All research outputs
#15,745,807
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Breast cancer targets and therapy
#146
of 324 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#179,938
of 326,871 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Breast cancer targets and therapy
#7
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 324 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 326,871 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.