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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Diagnostic performance of 18F-FDG PET/CT using point spread function reconstruction on initial staging of rectal cancer: a comparison study with conventional PET/CT and pelvic MRI
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cancer Imaging, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40644-018-0137-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Masatoshi Hotta, Ryogo Minamimoto, Hideaki Yano, Yoshimasa Gohda, Yasutaka Shuno |
| Abstract |
Accurate staging is crucial for treatment selection and prognosis prediction in patients with rectal cancer. Point spread function (PSF) reconstruction can improve spatial resolution and signal-to-noise ratio of PET imaging. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of 18F-FDG PET/CT with PSF reconstruction for initial staging in rectal cancer compared with conventional PET/CT and pelvic MRI. A total of 59 patients with rectal cancer underwent preoperative 18F-FDG PET/CT and pelvic MRI. The maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) and lesion to background (L/B) ratio of possible metastatic lymph nodes, and metabolic tumor volumes (MTVs) of primary tumors were calculated. For N and T (T1-2 vs T3-4) staging, sensitivities, specificities, positive predictive values, negative predictive values, and accuracies were compared between conventional PET/CT [reconstructed with ordered subset expectation maximization (OSEM)], PSF-PET/CT (reconstructed with OSEM+PSF), and pelvic MRI. Histopathologic analysis was the reference standard. For N staging, PSF-PET/CT provided higher sensitivity (78.6%) than conventional PET/CT (64.3%), and pelvic MRI (57.1%), and all techniques showed high specificity (PSF-PET: 95.4%, conventional PET: 96.7%, pelvic MRI: 93.5%). SUVmax and L/B ratio were significantly higher in PSF-PET/CT than conventional-PET/CT (p < 0.001). The accuracy for T staging in PSF-PET/CT (69.4%) was not significantly different to conventional PET/CT (73.5%) and pelvic MRI (73.5%). MTVs of PSF and conventional PET showed a significant difference among T stages (p < 0.001), with higher values in advanced stages. In M staging, both PSF and conventional PET/CT diagnosed all distant metastases correctly. PSF-PET/CT produced images with higher lesion-to-background contrast than conventional PET/CT, which allowed improved detection of lymph node metastasis without compromising specificity, and showed comparable diagnostic value to MRI in local staging. PSF-PET/CT is likely to have a great value for initial staging in rectal cancer. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 50% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 42 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 12% |
| Unknown | 13 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 43% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 5% |
| Psychology | 2 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 5% |
| Engineering | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 15 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 01 February 2018.
All research outputs
#15,097,241
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Imaging
#188
of 674 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#233,767
of 449,219 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Imaging
#5
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its peers.
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 449,219 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.