↓ Skip to main content

A case of marginal zone B cell lymphoma mimicking IgG4-related dacryoadenitis and sialoadenitis

Overview of attention for article published in World Journal of Surgical Oncology, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
18 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
A case of marginal zone B cell lymphoma mimicking IgG4-related dacryoadenitis and sialoadenitis
Published in
World Journal of Surgical Oncology, February 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12957-015-0459-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Miho Ohta, Masafumi Moriyama, Yuichi Goto, Shintaro Kawano, Akihiko Tanaka, Takashi Maehara, Sachiko Furukawa, Jun-Nosuke Hayashida, Tamotsu Kiyoshima, Mayumi Shimizu, Yojiro Arinobu, Seiji Nakamura

Abstract

IgG4-related dacryoadenitis and sialoadenitis (IgG4-DS), so-called Mikulicz's disease, is characterized by elevated serum IgG4 and infiltration of IgG4-positive plasma cells in glandular tissues. Recently, several studies reported both malignant lymphoma developed on the background of IgG4-associated conditions and IgG4-producing malignant lymphoma (non-IgG4-related disease). We report on the case of a 70-year-old man who was strongly suspected IgG4-DS because of high serum IgG4 concentration (215 mg/dl) and bilateral swelling of parotid and submandibular glands. Biopsies of cervical lymph node and a portion of submandibular gland were performed. These histopathological findings subsequently confirmed a diagnosis of marginal zone B cell lymphoma. Differential diagnosis of IgG4-DS is necessary from other disorders, including Sjögren's syndrome, sarcoidosis, Castleman's disease, Wegener's granulomatosis, lymphoma, and cancer. We suggest that biopsy of swollen lesions is important for a definitive diagnosis of IgG4-DS and discuss the mechanism of development in this case.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 17%
Student > Bachelor 3 17%
Student > Master 3 17%
Other 2 11%
Professor 2 11%
Other 5 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 61%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 11%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 6%
Psychology 1 6%
Neuroscience 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 11%
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 04 March 2015.
All research outputs
#18,401,176
of 22,792,160 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Surgical Oncology
#1,012
of 2,042 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#185,218
of 255,034 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Surgical Oncology
#40
of 76 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,792,160 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 2,042 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.1. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 255,034 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 76 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.