↓ Skip to main content

Solid Pseudopapillary Neoplasms of the Pancreas: A Surgical and Genetic Enigma

Overview of attention for article published in World Journal of Surgery, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
Title
Solid Pseudopapillary Neoplasms of the Pancreas: A Surgical and Genetic Enigma
Published in
World Journal of Surgery, March 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00268-017-3921-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Leon Naar, Despoina‐Amalia Spanomichou, Aikaterini Mastoraki, Vassilios Smyrniotis, Nikolaos Arkadopoulos

Abstract

Solid pseudopapillary neoplasms of the pancreas are rare tumors accounting for 1-2% of pancreatic exocrine neoplasms. This entity was first described by Dr. Frantz in 1959 and was defined by the World Health Organization in 1996 as "solid pseudopapillary tumor." It is most often a benign neoplasm, but 10-15% of the cases are malignant. Over the past decades, the incidence of this tumor is increasing. However, many surgeons are still unfamiliar with this neoplasm and its unique characteristics, which can lead to pitfalls in the diagnosis and treatment. The correct diagnosis of SPNP is of utmost importance since it has a low malignant potential and with the appropriate treatment, patients have a long life expectancy. There are many genetic alterations, involving various signaling pathways that have been associated with SPNP and are very important in diagnosing the tumor. The cornerstone of SPNP treatment includes surgical excision of the tumor, preserving as much pancreatic tissue as possible. We review the information in the literature regarding more organ-preserving techniques and possible clinical features that might indicate a malignant potential, thus demanding a more radical intraoperative excision.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

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 %
United States 1 3%
Unknown 37 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 5 13%
Student > Bachelor 5 13%
Student > Master 4 11%
Lecturer 3 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Other 8 21%
Unknown 10 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 58%
Unspecified 2 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Computer Science 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 10 26%
Attention Score in Context

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 01 February 2018.
All research outputs
#20,461,148
of 23,018,998 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Surgery
#3,827
of 4,262 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#271,251
of 311,315 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Surgery
#77
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,018,998 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 4,262 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. 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 311,315 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 82 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.