| Title |
Impact of FDG-PET/CT in the management of lymphoma
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of Nuclear Medicine, October 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12149-011-0549-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Shingo Baba, Koichiro Abe, Takuro Isoda, Yasuhiro Maruoka, Masayuki Sasaki, Hiroshi Honda |
| Abstract |
Since the introduction of (67)Gallium-citrate 30 years ago, nuclear medicine has played an important role in the evaluation of malignant lymphoma. During that time, several radiotracers were evaluated as potential alternatives for the diagnosis of lymphoma, but the introduction of (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET (FDG-PET) marked a major turning point. FDG-PET took over most of the role of gallium, and is now an essential tool in the diagnosis of lymphoma. FDG-PET is increasingly being used for assessment of the tumor staging prior to treatment, for evaluating the response to treatment, and for monitoring the early reactions to therapy to predict the final outcome. FDG-PET has been shown to have more accurate diagnostic capability than conventional CT and MRI for distinguishing the tumor necrosis and residual masses frequently seen after therapy in lymphoma patients without any clinical and biochemical manifestation. Malignant lymphoma is the first disease for which FDG-PET was adopted as a tool for response assessment in the international standard criteria. However, lymphoma does not always display a clear high uptake, and there are some pitfalls in assessing the response to therapy. This review will highlight the most important applications of FDG-PET in lymphoma, focusing on the advantages and pitfalls of this imaging, and past and ongoing efforts to standardize the use of FDG-PET, particularly in response to assessment and therapy monitoring. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 1 | 50% |
| United States | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 150% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 28 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 17% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 14% |
| Unknown | 7 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 66% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 7% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 7 | 24% |
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 10 April 2012.
All research outputs
#17,649,751
of 22,655,397 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Nuclear Medicine
#369
of 633 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#113,818
of 140,972 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Nuclear Medicine
#6
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,655,397 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 633 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.4. 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 140,972 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.