↓ Skip to main content

How I report breast magnetic resonance imaging studies for breast cancer staging and screening

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 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
How I report breast magnetic resonance imaging studies for breast cancer staging and screening
Published in
Cancer Imaging, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40644-016-0078-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarah Vinnicombe

Abstract

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the breast is the most sensitive imaging technique for the diagnosis and local staging of primary breast cancer and yet, despite the fact that it has been in use for 20 years, there is little evidence that its widespread uncritical adoption has had a positive impact on patient-related outcomes.This has been attributed previously to the low specificity that might be expected with such a sensitive modality, but with modern techniques and protocols, the specificity and positive predictive value for malignancy can exceed that of breast ultrasound and mammography. A more likely explanation is that historically, clinicians have acted on MRI findings and altered surgical plans without prior histological confirmation. Furthermore, modern adjuvant therapy for breast cancer has improved so much that it has become a very tall order to show a an improvement in outcomes such as local recurrence rates.In order to obtain clinically useful information, it is necessary to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the technique and the physiological processes reflected in breast MRI. An appropriate indication for the scan, proper patient preparation and good scan technique, with rigorous quality assurance, are all essential prerequisites for a diagnostically relevant study.The use of recognised descriptors from a standardised lexicon is helpful, since assessment can then dictate subsequent recommendations for management, as in the American College of Radiology BI-RADS (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System) lexicon (Morris et al., ACR BI-RADS® Atlas, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, 2013). It also enables audit of the service. However, perhaps the most critical factor in the generation of a meaningful report is for the reporting radiologist to have a thorough understanding of the clinical question and of the findings that will influence management. This has never been more important than at present, when we are in the throes of a remarkable paradigm shift in the treatment of both early stage and locally advanced breast cancer.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 57 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 8 14%
Researcher 7 12%
Student > Master 7 12%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Lecturer 3 5%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 20 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Computer Science 1 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 22 38%
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 02 October 2018.
All research outputs
#17,285,668
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Imaging
#319
of 674 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#251,183
of 379,928 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Imaging
#6
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 674 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.4. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 379,928 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.