↓ Skip to main content

The Utility of FDG-PET/CT in Clinically Suspected Paraneoplastic Neurological Syndrome: A Literature Review and Retrospective Case Series

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
12 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
The Utility of FDG-PET/CT in Clinically Suspected Paraneoplastic Neurological Syndrome: A Literature Review and Retrospective Case Series
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, June 2017
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2017.00238
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mark P. Maskery, Jonathan Hill, John R. Cain, Hedley C. A. Emsley

Abstract

Paraneoplastic neurological syndrome (PNS) describes a spectrum of rare, heterogeneous neurological conditions associated with an underlying malignancy. Diagnosis of PNS is inherently difficult, with frequent misdiagnosis and delay. The literature suggests an underlying immune-mediated pathophysiology, and patients are usually tested for the presence of onconeural antibodies. With direct tumor therapy being the most effective method of stabilizing patients, there is a strong emphasis on detecting underlying tumors. The sensitivity of conventional CT imaging is often inadequate in such patients. While FDG-PET imaging has already been shown to be effective at detecting these tumors, FDG-PET/CT, combining both structural and functional imaging in a single study, is a more recent technique. To study the utility of FDG-PET/CT, we conducted a systematic literature review and a retrospective study. We identified 41 patients who underwent imaging for clinically suspected PNS at the regional PET-CT and neurosciences center based at the Royal Preston Hospital between 2007 and 2014 and compared the results to conventional investigations. Five patients had FDG-PET/CT tracer avidity suspicious of malignant disease, and four of these were subsequently diagnosed with cancer. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated to be 100 and 97.3%, respectively, with positive predictive value 80% and negative predictive value 100%. This compares to a sensitivity and specificity of 50 and 100%, respectively, for CT and 50 and 89%, respectively, for onconeural antibodies. These findings are in line with previous studies and support the diagnostic accuracy of FDG-PET/CT for the detection of underlying malignancy.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 12 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 25%
Other 2 17%
Student > Postgraduate 2 17%
Student > Master 1 8%
Student > Bachelor 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 58%
Neuroscience 1 8%
Unknown 4 33%
Attention Score in Context

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 18 June 2017.
All research outputs
#18,552,700
of 22,977,819 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#7,820
of 11,863 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#241,429
of 316,526 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#124
of 182 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,977,819 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,863 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 316,526 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 182 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.