| Title |
Image-guided biopsy in patients with suspected ovarian carcinoma: a safe and effective technique?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Radiology, August 2008
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00330-008-1121-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nyree Griffin, Lee A. Grant, Susan J. Freeman, Mercedes Jimenez-Linan, Laurence H. Berman, Helena Earl, Ahmed Ashour Ahmed, Robin Crawford, James Brenton, Evis Sala |
| Abstract |
In patients with suspected advanced ovarian carcinoma, a precise histological diagnosis is required before commencing neo-adjuvant chemotherapy. This study aims to determine the diagnostic accuracy and complication rate of percutaneous biopsies performed under ultrasound or computed tomography guidance. Between 2002 to 2007, 60 consecutive image-guided percutaneous biopsies were performed in patients with suspected ovarian cancer. The following variables were recorded: tissue biopsied, imaging technique, experience of operator, biopsy needle gauge, number of passes, complications, and final histology. Forty-seven patients had omental biopsies, 12 pelvic mass biopsies, and 1 para-aortic lymph node biopsy. Thirty-five biopsies were performed under ultrasound, 25 under computed tomography guidance. Biopsy needle gauges ranged from 14-20 swg with two to five passes for each patient. There were no complications. Histology was obtained in 52 (87%) patients. Percutaneous image-guided biopsy of peritoneal disease or pelvic mass is safe with high diagnostic accuracy. The large-gauge biopsy needle is as safe as the small gauge needle, but has the added value of obtaining tissue samples for immunohistochemistry and genomic studies. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 30 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 23% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 13% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 6 | 20% |
| Unknown | 5 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 57% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 10% |
| Engineering | 2 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 7 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 06 September 2011.
All research outputs
#7,444,500
of 22,757,090 outputs
Outputs from European Radiology
#1,121
of 4,103 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,475
of 81,725 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Radiology
#6
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,757,090 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,103 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 81,725 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.