| Title |
Value of EUS in Determining Curative Resectability in Reference to CT and FDG-PET: The Optimal Sequence in Preoperative Staging of Esophageal Cancer?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of Surgical Oncology, May 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1245/s10434-011-1738-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
L. M. A. Schreurs, A. C. J. W. Janssens, H. Groen, P. Fockens, H. M. van Dullemen, M. I. van Berge Henegouwen, G. W. Sloof, J. Pruim, J. J. B. van Lanschot, E. W. Steyerberg, J. Th. M. Plukker |
| Abstract |
BACKGROUND: The separate value of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), multidetector computed tomography (CT), and (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) in the optimal sequence in staging esophageal cancer has not been investigated adequately. METHODS: The staging records of 216 consecutive operable patients with esophageal cancer were reviewed blindly. Different staging strategies were analyzed, and the likelihood ratio (LR) of each module was calculated conditionally on individual patient characteristics. A logistic regression approach was used to determine the most favorable staging strategy. RESULTS: Initial EUS results were not significantly related to the LRs of initial CT and FDG-PET results. The positive LR (LR+) of EUS-fine-needle aspiration (FNA) was 4, irrespective of CT and FDG-PET outcomes. The LR+ of FDG-PET varied from 13 (negative CT) to 6 (positive CT). The LR+ of CT ranged from 3-4 (negative FDG-PET) to 2-3 (positive FDG-PET). Age, histology, and tumor length had no significant impact on the LRs of the three diagnostic tests. CONCLUSIONS: This study argues in favor of PET/CT rather than EUS as a predictor of curative resectability in esophageal cancer. EUS does not correspond with either CT or FDG-PET. LRs of FDG-PET were substantially different between subgroups of negative and positive CT results and vice versa. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 | 2 | 33% |
| Unknown | 4 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 67% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 17% |
| Scientists | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 37 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 9 | 24% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 13% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 8% |
| Professor | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 9 | 24% |
| Unknown | 5 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 50% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 3 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 7 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 18 January 2018.
All research outputs
#6,842,763
of 22,774,233 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#2,321
of 6,452 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,550
of 110,307 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#12
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,774,233 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,452 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 110,307 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.