↓ Skip to main content

The Kaiser's cancer revisited: was Virchow totally wrong?

Overview of attention for article published in Virchows Archiv, April 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#12 of 2,132)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
59 X users
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 Mendeley
Title
The Kaiser's cancer revisited: was Virchow totally wrong?
Published in
Virchows Archiv, April 2011
DOI 10.1007/s00428-011-1075-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Antonio Cardesa, Nina Zidar, Llucia Alos, Alfons Nadal, Nina Gale, Günter Klöppel

Abstract

On 15 June 1888, the German Emperor, Kaiser Friedrich III, died of laryngeal cancer. Three biopsies of his laryngeal lesion had been taken by the British laryngologist, Morel Mackenzie, in 1887 and diagnosed by Rudolf Virchow as "pachydermia verrucosa laryngis", confirming Mackenzie's assessment that the Kaiser's disease was benign. A fourth specimen coughed up by the patient was considered by Virchow to be nondiagnostic. A further specimen expectorated by the patient 3 months before his death was diagnosed as carcinoma by Wilhelm Waldeyer. The autopsy revealed squamous carcinoma in the larynx with a cervical lymph node metastasis. The discrepancies between the initial diagnoses and the final outcome of the Kaiser's disease gave rise to a never-ending medical controversy. Our investigations on this historical case were limited to the official German documents and publications and their English translations and to subsequent literature sources of the time, after having received confirmation that the histological slides and Virchow's original reports had been lost. Based on current surgical pathology knowledge, we propose that the tumour that challenged the diagnostic skills of the founder of pathology was hybrid verrucous carcinoma (HVC), an extremely rare, metastasizing variant of verrucous carcinoma (VC) composed of pure VC mixed with clusters of conventional squamous cell carcinoma. As we see it now, Virchow was therefore not totally wrong. Our retrospective evaluation suggests that Virchow's detailed description of the Kaiser's cancer preceded the paper that contributed to the full understanding of HVC of the larynx by 110 years.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 59 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 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 1 5%
Argentina 1 5%
Unknown 19 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 24%
Student > Bachelor 2 10%
Other 2 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 10%
Other 5 24%
Unknown 3 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 52%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 14%
Engineering 2 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 5%
Unknown 4 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 51. 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 June 2023.
All research outputs
#779,264
of 24,498,639 outputs
Outputs from Virchows Archiv
#12
of 2,132 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,723
of 112,164 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Virchows Archiv
#2
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,498,639 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,132 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 112,164 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.