↓ Skip to main content

Sternal intraosseous schwannoma mimicking breast cancer metastasis

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery, June 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 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
Sternal intraosseous schwannoma mimicking breast cancer metastasis
Published in
Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery, June 2014
DOI 10.1186/1749-8090-9-116
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hitoshi Igai, Mitsuhiro Kamiyoshihara, Natsuko Kawatani, Takashi Ibe, Kimihiro Shimizu

Abstract

The preoperative diagnosis of intraosseous schwannoma is challenging because of its rarity. We report a resected case of sternal intraosseous schwannnoma mimicking late recurrence of breast cancer.A 60-year-old Japanese woman with a history of breast cancer was diagnosed as having a sternal tumor by chest computed tomography (CT) demonstrating a round, well-defined, low-density nodule measuring 3.3 × 2.8 cm, which was located almost at the center of the sternum and associated with bone lysis and erosion. [18 F]Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET)/CT demonstrated FDG accumulation in the tumor, suggesting malignancy. Therefore, late isolated recurrence of breast cancer was suspected. Surgical resection was performed for both confirmation of the diagnosis and treatment.Pathological examination revealed that the tumor was composed predominantly of spindle-shaped cells arranged in a typical palisading pattern, being compatible with schwannoma. Although the periosteum was intact, the tumor was found to have destroyed the cortex of the sternum and proceeded forward to the bone marrow. Additionally, immunohistochemical staining revealed that the lesion was diffusely and strongly positive for S-100 protein. Thus metastasis from breast cancer was ruled out on the basis of the features revealed by microscopy.

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 > Master 5 71%
Researcher 1 14%
Student > Bachelor 1 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 71%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 14%
Unknown 1 14%

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 27 June 2014.
All research outputs
#3,569,062
of 4,507,509 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery
#140
of 230 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,238
of 107,301 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery
#12
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 4,507,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 230 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.8. 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 107,301 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 18 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.