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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Comparison of FDG PET/CT and MRI in lymph node staging of endometrial cancer
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of Nuclear Medicine, November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12149-015-1037-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hyun Jeong Kim, Arthur Cho, Mijin Yun, Young Tae Kim, Won Jun Kang |
| Abstract |
Endometrial cancer is the most frequent cancer occurring in the female genital tract in the Western countries. Because surgical staging is currently the standard, noninvasive techniques that accurately identify lymph node (LN) metastases would be beneficial by reducing costs and complications. The purpose of our study is to compare the diagnostic accuracy of 2-[(18)F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose ((18)F-FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) with that of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for detecting LN metastases in the preoperative staging of endometrial cancer. Two hundred eighty-seven consecutive patients with endometrial cancer underwent preoperative PET/CT and MRI for staging. The malignancy criteria for LNs were a short diameter of 1 cm or more by MRI and focally increased (18)F-FDG uptake by PET/CT. After evaluating PET/CT and MRI separately, morphologic and functional image findings were compared with the histological findings regarding LN metastasis for all patients. PET/CT and MRI images were classified on the basis of histological findings as true-positive, true-negative, false-positive, or false-negative. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy were calculated. Histologic examination revealed LN metastases in 51 patients (17.8 %). The maximal standardized uptake values (SUVmax) of the primary lesions by PET/CT ranged from 1.4 to 37.7, with a mean value of 9.3, whereas those of the metastatic LNs ranged from 2.0 to 22.5 with a mean of 7.3. On a per-patient basis, node staging resulted in sensitivities of 70.0 % with (18)F-FDG PET/CT and 34.0 % with MRI, and specificities of 95.4 % with PET/CT and 95.0 % with MRI. The NPV of PET/CT was 94.3 %, and that of MRI was 87.2 %. On a lesion base analysis, sensitivity of PET/CT was 79.4 % while that of MRI was 51.6 %. In detecting distant metastasis, the sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, PPV, and NPV of PET/CT were 92.9, 98.9, 98.6, 81.3, and 99.6 %, respectively. Diagnostic performance of FDG PET/CT was better than MRI for detecting metastatic lymph nodes in patients with endometrial cancer both by patient basis and lesion basis analyses. Due to high NPV, FDG PET-CT could aid in selecting candidates for lymphadenectomy. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 191 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 191 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 4% |
| Other | 7 | 4% |
| Researcher | 7 | 4% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 2% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 8 | 4% |
| Unknown | 155 | 81% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 13% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 2% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 1% |
| Chemistry | 2 | 1% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 3 | 2% |
| Unknown | 156 | 82% |
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 08 November 2015.
All research outputs
#14,828,066
of 22,832,057 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Nuclear Medicine
#287
of 632 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#157,838
of 285,670 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Nuclear Medicine
#7
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,832,057 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 632 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 285,670 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 2 of them.