| Title |
Histological assessment of therapeutic response in breast cancer
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Breast Cancer, October 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12282-013-0499-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rie Horii, Futoshi Akiyama |
| Abstract |
Histological assessment of the therapeutic response to neoadjuvant therapy gives us information regarding the efficacy of a given treatment in individual patients. Such information is useful for guiding selection of appropriate therapeutic strategies after surgery. In many studies of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for breast cancer, both the histological therapeutic effect in the primary lesion and the lymph node metastatic status are significantly related to prognosis. The histological assessment of therapeutic response helps determine prognosis in breast cancer treated with NAC; however, methodological problems remain. There are many different histological criteria currently used to assess therapeutic response. Even when the same criteria are used, use of different methods for examination of surgical material can cause different results for the same patient case. When histological therapeutic effect is determined in daily clinical practice, pathologists have to describe the criteria used and their examination methods. Histological criteria for evaluation of therapeutic response and methods for examination of surgical materials after neoadjuvant therapy must be standardized in the near future. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 5% |
| Chile | 1 | 5% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 16 | 84% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 26% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 11% |
| Librarian | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 5 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 42% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 5% |
| Psychology | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 6 | 32% |
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 27 November 2013.
All research outputs
#21,476,880
of 23,975,976 outputs
Outputs from Breast Cancer
#458
of 614 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#191,570
of 217,151 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Breast Cancer
#3
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,975,976 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 614 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 217,151 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.