↓ Skip to main content

Invasive urothelial carcinoma, lymphoma-like/plasmacytoid variant, successfully treated by radical cystectomy with adjuvant chemotherapy: a case report

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Case Reports, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Readers on

mendeley
5 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
Invasive urothelial carcinoma, lymphoma-like/plasmacytoid variant, successfully treated by radical cystectomy with adjuvant chemotherapy: a case report
Published in
Journal of Medical Case Reports, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13256-016-0806-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mari Ohtaka, Takashi Kawahara, Yohei Kumano, Yoko Maeda, Takuya Kondo, Taku Mochizuki, Hiroaki Ishida, Yusuke Hattori, Jun-ichi Teranishi, Yasuhide Miyoshi, Yasushi Yumura, Masahiro Yao, Yoshiaki Inayama, Hiroji Uemura

Abstract

Invasive urothelial carcinoma, lymphoma-like/plasmacytoid variant, is a rare histological type of bladder cancer similar to plasma cells and is an aggressive variant of urothelial carcinoma associated with a poor prognosis. A 41-year-old Asian man was referred to our hospital due to macroscopic hematuria. Cystoscopy detected a non-papillary tumor, and a transurethral resection of the bladder tumor revealed pT1N0M0 bladder cancer. A pathological examination showed high-grade invasive urothelial carcinoma and a component of signet ring cell carcinoma. A follow-up of the transurethral resection with radical cystectomy was carried out, and a pathological examination showed infiltrating urothelial carcinoma, with partial features of the plasmacytoid variant. We added chemotherapy treatment with gemcitabine and cisplatin for two cycles. Our patient has been free from recurrence for 2 years. We herein report the case of a patient with a plasmacytoid variant of urothelial carcinoma controlled with radial cystectomy and subsequent chemotherapy.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 5 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 5 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 3 60%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 3 60%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 40%

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 March 2016.
All research outputs
#5,579,315
of 7,377,337 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Case Reports
#756
of 1,356 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#195,341
of 277,972 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Case Reports
#29
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,377,337 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 1,356 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 277,972 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.