↓ Skip to main content

Perivascular epithelioid cell neoplasm of the urinary bladder in an adolescent: a case report and review of the literature

Overview of attention for article published in Diagnostic Pathology, December 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 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
Perivascular epithelioid cell neoplasm of the urinary bladder in an adolescent: a case report and review of the literature
Published in
Diagnostic Pathology, December 2012
DOI 10.1186/1746-1596-7-183
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lijuan Yin, Hong Bu, Min Chen, Jianqun Yu, Hua Zhuang, Jie Chen, Hongying Zhang

Abstract

Perivascular epithelioid cell neoplasms (PEComas) of the urinary bladder are extremely rare and the published cases were comprised predominantly of middle-aged patients. Herein, the authors present the first urinary bladder PEComa occurring in an adolescent. This 16-year-old Chinese girl present with a 3-year history of abdominal discomfort and a solid mass was documented in the urinary bladder by ultrasonography. Two years later, at the age of 18, the patient underwent transurethral resection of the bladder tumor. Microscopically, the tumor was composed of spindled cells mixed with epithelioid cells. Immunohistochemically, the tumor were strongly positive for HMB45, smooth muscle actin, muscle-specific actin, and H-caldesmon. Fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis revealed no evidence of EWSR1 gene rearrangement. The patient had been in a good status without evidence of recurrence 13 months after surgery. Urinary bladder PEComa is an extremely rare neoplasm and seems occur predominantly in middle-aged patients. However, this peculiar lesion can develop in pediatric population and therefore it should be rigorously distinguished from their mimickers.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 61 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor 3 5%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 3%
Other 2 3%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 2%
Researcher 1 2%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 50 82%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 8%
Computer Science 2 3%
Physics and Astronomy 1 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Engineering 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 51 84%

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 04 January 2013.
All research outputs
#2,901,479
of 3,636,227 outputs
Outputs from Diagnostic Pathology
#299
of 393 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#222,064
of 278,905 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Diagnostic Pathology
#22
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 3,636,227 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 393 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 278,905 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.