↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of strain and shear-wave ultrasounic elastography in predicting the pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancers

Overview of attention for article published in European Radiology, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
Title
Comparison of strain and shear-wave ultrasounic elastography in predicting the pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancers
Published in
European Radiology, October 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00330-016-4619-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yan Ma, Shuo Zhang, Jing Li, Jianyi Li, Ye Kang, Weidong Ren

Abstract

To compare the diagnostic performances of strain elastography (SE) and shear-wave elastography (SWE) for predicting response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) in patients with breast cancer. This prospective study recruited 71 eligible patients from June 2014 to May 2016. All patients provided written informed consent. Tumour stiffness was assessed by the SE strain ratio (R), SWE maximum elasticity (Emax) and SWE mean elasticity (Emean). Ultrasonic elastography (UE) assessments were performed at each NACT cycle (t1 - t6). For the purpose of predicting, the relative changes in elastographic parameters after the first and second NACT cycles were considered as the variables [Δ(t1) and Δ(t2)]. The area under the receiver operating characteristics (AUC) curve was compared. ΔEmean(t2) and R2 displayed the best diagnostic performances within their own modalities (AUC = 0.93 and 0.90 for predicting favourable response to NACT; AUC = 0.92 and 0.78 for predicting NACT resistance, respectively). There were no significant differences in AUCs for ΔEmean(t2) and some UE parameters (P > 0.05). By contrast, ΔEmean(t2) was significantly superior to all other SE parameters for predicting resistance (P < 0.05). SE and SWE exhibited similar performances for predicting favourable NACT responses; SWE was better than SE for predicting NACT resistance. • Elastography parameters after the second NACT cycle showed the best diagnostic performances. • SWE and SE yielded similar diagnostic performances in predicting favourable responses. • SWE performed better than SE in predicting the pathological resistance to NACT. • Discrepant results may be due to the breast thickness and lesion depth.

X Demographics

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.
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 %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 31%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Researcher 3 9%
Other 2 6%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 8 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Engineering 2 6%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 9 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 15 April 2021.
All research outputs
#2,794,427
of 22,963,381 outputs
Outputs from European Radiology
#274
of 4,160 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,557
of 316,013 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Radiology
#6
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,963,381 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,160 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 316,013 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.