↓ Skip to main content

Correlation of endoscopic biopsy with tumor marker status in primary intracranial germ cell tumors

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Neuro-Oncology, April 2006
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
Title
Correlation of endoscopic biopsy with tumor marker status in primary intracranial germ cell tumors
Published in
Journal of Neuro-Oncology, April 2006
DOI 10.1007/s11060-005-9110-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Neal Luther, Mark A. Edgar, Ira J. Dunkel, Mark M. Souweidane

Abstract

We retrospectively analyzed the results of eight patients who underwent endoscopic biopsy of a newly diagnosed primary intracranial germ cell tumor (GCT), and correlated tumor pathology with serum and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) tumor markers and treatment outcome in order to determine the reliability of GCT sampling by this method. A biopsy diagnosis was made in each patient, and the tumor histology correlated with tumor marker measurements for all six patients diagnosed with germinoma and for one with a yolk sac tumor. One biopsy revealed only mature teratoma, an inconclusive result since the patient's serum and CSF tumor markers were elevated. No morbidity was experienced as a result of the operative procedure. Five of six patients diagnosed with germinoma responded completely to radiation therapy and are without evidence of disease, while one suffered a likely germinoma recurrence and was subsequently successfully retreated. We conclude that endoscopic biopsy of marker-negative germ cell tumors is a safe, reliable method of establishing a diagnosis of germinoma. However, endoscopic biopsy may fail to yield an accurate diagnosis in cases of malignant non-germinomatous tumor. We would thus conclude that when primary germ cell tumor is considered, endoscopic tumor biopsy is recommended in patients with a negative biochemical analysis, but not suggested for patients presenting with elevated tumor markers.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 4%
Unknown 25 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 19%
Student > Postgraduate 4 15%
Student > Bachelor 3 12%
Other 3 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 12%
Other 7 27%
Unknown 1 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 62%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 2 8%
Attention Score in Context

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 28 December 2013.
All research outputs
#7,454,951
of 22,790,780 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neuro-Oncology
#1,041
of 2,967 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,328
of 66,429 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neuro-Oncology
#4
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,790,780 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 2,967 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 66,429 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.