↓ Skip to main content

Anti-Hu Antibody Associated Paraneoplastic Cerebellar Degeneration in Head and Neck Cancer

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 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
Anti-Hu Antibody Associated Paraneoplastic Cerebellar Degeneration in Head and Neck Cancer
Published in
BMC Cancer, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12885-015-2020-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Florian Huemer, Thomas Melchardt, Wolfgang Tränkenschuh, Daniel Neureiter, Gerhard Moser, Teresa Magnes, Lukas Weiss, Alexander Schlattau, Clemens Hufnagl, Gerda Ricken, Romana Höftberger, Richard Greil, Alexander Egle

Abstract

Paraneoplastic syndromes are most frequently associated with small cell lung carcinoma, hematologic and gynecologic malignancies while reports in head and neck cancer are rare. We present the case of a 60-year old female patient who developed paraneoplastic cerebellar degeneration upon locoregional recurrence of a poorly differentiated spindle cell carcinoma of the nasal cavity and paranasal sinus. The neurological symptoms, especially ataxia, stabilized after resection of tumor recurrence and concomitant chemoradiotherapy whereas anti-Hu-antibodies remained positive. Despite the unfavorable prognosis of paraneoplastic neurological disorders associated with onconeural antibodies, the patient achieved long-standing stabilization of neurological symptoms. We report the first patient with anti-Hu antibodies and paraneoplastic cerebellar degeneration associated with a spindle cell carcinoma of the head and neck. We recommend that evaluation of neurological symptoms in patients with this tumor entity should also include paraneoplastic syndromes as differential diagnoses and suggest early extensive screening for onconeural antibodies.

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 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 22%
Researcher 3 13%
Student > Postgraduate 3 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 9%
Librarian 2 9%
Other 4 17%
Unknown 4 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 57%
Psychology 1 4%
Computer Science 1 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Neuroscience 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 5 22%

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 13 August 2016.
All research outputs
#6,232,631
of 8,208,063 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#2,229
of 3,465 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#214,680
of 312,565 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#102
of 189 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,208,063 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,465 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 312,565 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 189 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.