↓ Skip to main content

Cytopathology in Oncology

Overview of attention for book
Attention for Chapter 7: Genitourinary cytopathology (kidney and urinary tract).
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#33 of 165)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
11 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.
Chapter title
Genitourinary cytopathology (kidney and urinary tract).
Chapter number 7
Book title
Cytopathology in Oncology
Published in
Cancer treatment and research, January 2014
DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-38850-7_7
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-3-64-238849-1, 978-3-64-238850-7
Authors

Güliz A Barkan, Eva M Wojcik, Güliz A. Barkan, Eva M. Wojcik, Barkan, Güliz A., Wojcik, Eva M.

Abstract

FNA of kidney masses have been performed for the diagnosis of mass lesions,confirmation of advanced neoplasia and metastases, and staging of tumors. In the past, the decision of whether to perform a nephrectomy used to be based on radiographic features and size, precluding the use of FNA. Today, where treatment is not limited to surgery alone, the indications for renal FNA have expanded. Most small renal masses are asymptomatic and are detected incidentally due to improved imaging techniques. Although most urologists agree that the standard of care for renal masses is surgery, if the patient is an elderly individual, or has comorbidities a preoperative FNA could be useful in guiding the management.When we look at data from large referral institutions such as Mayo Clinic, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, and the Cleveland Clinic approximately 30 %of the renal masses are benign [86---88]. Therefore, as astutely pointed out by Volpe et al.[3], there is a role for precise pretreatment characterization of the renal masses by FNA, which would decrease the unnecessary treatment for benign diseases and reduce the treatment-related mortality and morbidity in addition to reducing patient care costs.To date, urine cytology remains the gold standard for bladder cancer screening.It has been, and still is, the test against which all new tests are compared when evaluating potential bladder tumor markers. The answer to whether urine cytology possesses the optimal combination of sensitivity and specificity to retain consideration as the best screening device depends on the goals of the practice. Urine cytology has excellent specificity with only few false-positive cases. Its overall sensitivity (including both high grade and low grade lesions) is poor, but this is explained by poor criteria for identifying well-differentiated, low-grade urothelial carcinoma in cytology. The natural history of low grade lesions is that of multiple superficial recurrences in 70 - 80 % of patients, with only a minority ( 10-15 %)progressing to muscle invasive or metastatic disease [89]. Patients with low-grade urothelial carcinoma are at low risk for progression, they are monitored primarily for the development of a subsequent high grade tumor [90]. Therefore, as suggested by Koss, detection of new low-grade lesions may be clinically irrelevant as compared to early detection of disease progression [39]. Contrary to the low grade lesions, however, urine cytology often results in the identification of high-grade malignant cells even before a cystoscopically distinguishable gross lesion is present. In the last 20 years, a number of noninvasive test have been developed to detect urothelial carcinoma. Although some have been able to show a better sensitivity compared to cytology, only a few have been close to reaching the sensitivity seen in cytology. Most of these tests have not added much to the diagnostic evaluation. Combining some of the new markers with each other and/or cytologic evaluation may optimize their performance status.

Mendeley readers

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 %
United States 1 9%
Unknown 10 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 2 18%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 18%
Unspecified 1 9%
Other 1 9%
Other 2 18%
Unknown 1 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 18%
Arts and Humanities 1 9%
Unspecified 1 9%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 9%
Psychology 1 9%
Other 2 18%
Unknown 3 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 27 May 2014.
All research outputs
#5,692,634
of 22,756,196 outputs
Outputs from Cancer treatment and research
#33
of 165 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,959
of 305,260 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer treatment and research
#3
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,756,196 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 165 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its peers.
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 305,260 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.