↓ Skip to main content

Nodular fasciitis of the breast clinically resembling breast cancer in an elderly woman: a case report

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Case Reports, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
7 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
Nodular fasciitis of the breast clinically resembling breast cancer in an elderly woman: a case report
Published in
Journal of Medical Case Reports, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13256-017-1219-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Satoshi Hayashi, Shunsuke Yasuda, Nana Takahashi, Satoshi Okazaki, Kei Ishibashi, Masahiro Kitada, Naoyuki Miyokawa

Abstract

Nodular fasciitis is a benign reactive proliferative lesion of fibroblast cells, which can occur throughout the body. However, it has rarely been reported in the breast of an elderly woman. Our patient was an 88-year-old Asian woman who had noticed a mass in her right breast for 1 month before presentation to our hospital. The mass was elastic-hard and 20 mm in size. No qualitative diagnosis was made by core needle biopsy. Because of potentially malignant findings on mammography and ultrasonography, she underwent an excisional biopsy. Microscopically, spindle cell proliferation with abundant elastic fibers were observed. The tumor cells were positive for α-smooth muscle actin and negative for pancytokeratin, β-catenin, and cluster of differentiation 34. Based on these morphological and immunohistochemical features, a diagnosis of nodular fasciitis was made. All resection margins in the specimen were tumor-free. The patient has been disease-free for over 12 months. Nodular fasciitis shows clinical features and imaging findings similar to those of breast cancer. To avoid unnecessary surgery, nodular fasciitis should be taken into consideration when there is spindle cell proliferation found by biopsy.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 7 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 1 14%
Researcher 1 14%
Other 1 14%
Student > Postgraduate 1 14%
Unknown 3 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 14%
Unknown 3 43%

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 07 March 2017.
All research outputs
#9,071,180
of 11,330,364 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Case Reports
#944
of 1,684 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#188,617
of 257,174 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Case Reports
#44
of 100 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,330,364 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 1,684 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 257,174 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 100 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.