| Title |
Solitary Pulmonary Lesion in Patients with History of Malignancy: Primary Lung Cancer or Metastatic Cancer?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of Surgical Oncology, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1245/s10434-018-6360-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ke Jin, Kexi Wang, Huizhong Zhang, Yuejiang Pan, Dexiong Cao, Minghui Wang, Ju Chen, Duoguang Wu, Boshen Chen, Xuan Xie |
| Abstract |
Defining the status of solitary pulmonary lesion (SPL) in patients with history of malignancy is important because primary lung cancer (PLC) or intrapulmonary metastasis might indicate different surgical strategies. The aim of this study is to identify factors related to the status of these lesions and construct a clinical model to estimate the pretest probability of PLC. From January 2005 to January 2016, 104 patients with previous malignancy and suitable for surgery were retrospectively studied. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify possible factors related to SPLs. A nomogram was constructed to differentiate PLC from intrapulmonary metastasis. Ninety-seven (93.3%) patients were diagnosed as malignant postoperatively, including 61 patients with intrapulmonary metastasis and 36 patients with PLC. Multivariate analysis showed that site of primary tumor [head and neck squamous cell cancer: odds ratio (OR) = 28.509, P = 0.006; genitourinary cancer: OR = 23.928, P = 0.012], negative lymph node status of primary tumor (OR = 3.154, P = 0.038), spiculation of SPL (OR = 3.972, P = 0.022), and central location of SPL (OR = 4.679, P = 0.026) were four independent factors differentiating PLC from intrapulmonary metastasis. All of these were included in the nomogram. The C-index of the nomogram for predicting probability was 0.82. Incidence of malignant SPLs was fairly high in patients with history of malignancy. A nomogram including site and lymph node status of primary tumor, and spiculation and location of SPL might be a good tool for differentiating PLC from intrapulmonary metastasis preoperatively and guiding treatment. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | 25% |
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| Mexico | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 11 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 18% |
| Professor | 2 | 18% |
| Other | 1 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 9% |
| Other | 2 | 18% |
| Unknown | 2 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 55% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 18% |
| Unknown | 3 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 20 May 2018.
All research outputs
#13,963,252
of 22,840,638 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#3,980
of 6,471 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#230,281
of 436,786 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#74
of 93 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,840,638 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,471 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 436,786 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 93 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.