↓ Skip to main content

Gallium-68 perfusion positron emission tomography/computed tomography to assess pulmonary function in lung cancer patients undergoing surgery

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 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
Gallium-68 perfusion positron emission tomography/computed tomography to assess pulmonary function in lung cancer patients undergoing surgery
Published in
Cancer Imaging, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40644-016-0081-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pierre-Yves Le Roux, Tracy L. Leong, Stephen A Barnett, Rodney J. Hicks, Jason Callahan, Peter Eu, Renee Manser, Michael S. Hofman

Abstract

Pre-operative evaluation of lung cancer patients relies on calculation of predicted post-operative (PPO) lung function based on split lung function testing. Pulmonary perfusion (Q) PET/CT can now be performed by substituting Technetium-99 m labeling of macroaggregated albumin (MAA) with Gallium-68. This study compares Q PET/CT with current recommended methods of pre-operative lung function assessment. Twenty-two patients planned for curative surgical resection (mean FEV1 77 %, SD 21 %; mean DLCO 66 %, SD 17 % predicted) underwent pre-operative Q PET/CT. Sixteen patients also underwent conventional lung scintigraphy. Lobar and lung split PPO lung function were calculated using Q PET/CT and current recommended methods, i.e. calculation based on anatomical segments for lobar function, and conventional perfusion scan for pneumonectomy. Bland-Altman statistics were used to calculate agreement between methods for PPO FEV1 and PPO DLCO. While mean split lobar functions were comparable, there was variation on an individual level between Q PET/CT and the anatomical method, with absolute difference over 5 % and 10 % in 37 % and 11 % of patients, respectively. For lobectomy the mean difference in PPO FEV1 was-1.2, but limits of agreement were-10 to 8.1 %. For DLCO, values were-1.1 % and-9.7 to 7.5 %, respectively. For pneumonectomy, PPO FEV1 values were-0.4 and-5.9 to 5.1 %. For DLCO, values were 0.3 % and-5.1 to 4.6 %. While anatomic estimation provides "fixed" results, split lobar functions computed with Q PET/CT vary widely, reflecting the intra and inter-individual variability of regional lung function. Further studies to assess the role of Q PET/CT in predicting peri-operative risk in lung cancer patients planned for lobectomy are warranted.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 18%
Student > Bachelor 4 14%
Lecturer 4 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 14%
Student > Master 3 11%
Other 5 18%
Unknown 3 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 36%
Chemistry 4 14%
Engineering 3 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Other 5 18%
Unknown 4 14%
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 03 September 2016.
All research outputs
#20,656,820
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Imaging
#445
of 674 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#277,106
of 355,191 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Imaging
#9
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 355,191 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.