↓ Skip to main content

Pathological and molecular diagnosis of bilateral inguinal lymph nodes metastases from low-grade endometrial adenocarcinoma: a case report with review of the literature

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
10 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Pathological and molecular diagnosis of bilateral inguinal lymph nodes metastases from low-grade endometrial adenocarcinoma: a case report with review of the literature
Published in
BMC Cancer, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12885-017-3944-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna Myriam Perrone, Giulia Girolimetti, Simona Cima, Ivana Kurelac, Alessandra Livi, Giacomo Caprara, Donatella Santini, Paolo Castellucci, Alessio Giuseppe Morganti, Giuseppe Gasparre, Pierandrea De Iaco

Abstract

Extra-abdominal metastases in low grade endometrial carcinoma are rare events. Inguinal lymphatic spread occurs usually in advanced disease and is associated with abdominal lymph nodes involvement. To our knowledge, isolated inguinal lymph node metastases in patients with early endometrial carcinoma have never been described thus far. We present an uncommon case of inguinal lymph node metastasis in a 51-year old patient with early endometrial disease without other metastatic involvement. The metastatic loci were analyzed with the recently validated method of mitochondrial DNA sequencing to demonstrate clonality of the lesions. We describe the first case of inguinal metastasis from intramucous endometrial carcinoma; this case confirms the unpredictable spread of endometrial neoplasia and the importance of both patient's history and physical examination in good clinical practice.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 10 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 2 20%
Other 2 20%
Student > Master 2 20%
Unspecified 1 10%
Student > Bachelor 1 10%
Other 1 10%
Unknown 1 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 40%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 20%
Computer Science 1 10%
Unspecified 1 10%
Unknown 2 20%

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 15 August 2018.
All research outputs
#10,205,137
of 13,376,849 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#2,967
of 5,017 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#254,266
of 385,026 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#289
of 492 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,376,849 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,017 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 385,026 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 492 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.