↓ Skip to main content

Retrospective and comparative analysis of 99mTc-Sestamibi breast specific gamma imaging versus mammography, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for the detection of breast cancer in Chinese…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
31 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
Retrospective and comparative analysis of 99mTc-Sestamibi breast specific gamma imaging versus mammography, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for the detection of breast cancer in Chinese women
Published in
BMC Cancer, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12885-016-2537-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xiuyan Yu, Guoming Hu, Zhigang Zhang, Fuming Qiu, Xuan Shao, Xiaochen Wang, Hongwei Zhan, Yiding Chen, Yongchuan Deng, Jian Huang

Abstract

Diagnosing breast cancer during the early stage may be helpful for decreasing cancer-related mortality. In Western developed countries, mammographies have been the gold standard for breast cancer detection. However, Chinese women usually have denser and smaller-sized breasts compared to Caucasian women, which decreases the diagnostic accuracy of mammography. However, breast specific gamma imaging, a type of molecular functional breast imaging, has been used for the accurate diagnosis of breast cancer and is not influenced by breast density. Our objective was to analyze the breast specific gamma imaging (BSGI) diagnostic value for Chinese women. During a 2-year period, 357 women were diagnosed and treated at our oncology department and received BSGI in addition to mammography (MMG), ultrasound (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for diagnostic assessment. We investigated the sensitivity and specificity of each method of detection and compared the biological profiles of the four imaging methods. A total of 357 women received a final surgical pathology diagnosis, with 168 malignant diseases (58.5 %) and 119 benign diseases (41.5 %). Of these, 166 underwent the four imaging tests preoperatively. The sensitivity of BSGI was 80.35 and 82.14 % by US, 75.6 % by MMG, and 94.06 % by MRI. Furthermore, the breast cancer diagnosis specificity of BSGI was high (83.19 % vs. 77.31 % vs. 66.39 % vs. 67.69 %, respectively). The BSGI diagnostic sensitivity for mammographic breast density in women was superior to mammography and more sensitive for non-luminal A subtypes (luminal A vs. non-luminal A, 68.63 % vs. 88.30 %). BSGI may help improve the ability to diagnose early stage breast cancer for Chinese women, particularly for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), mammographic breast density and non-luminal A breast cancer.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 8 26%
Student > Master 5 16%
Other 3 10%
Researcher 3 10%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 8 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 10%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 5 16%
Unknown 8 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 25 October 2016.
All research outputs
#3,998,408
of 22,880,691 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#949
of 8,325 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,184
of 354,317 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#19
of 260 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,880,691 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,325 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 354,317 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 260 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.