↓ Skip to main content

The role of 18F-FDG uptake features in the differential diagnosis of solitary pulmonary lesions with PET/CT

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
10 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
The role of 18F-FDG uptake features in the differential diagnosis of solitary pulmonary lesions with PET/CT
Published in
World Journal of Surgical Oncology, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12957-015-0679-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ming Zhao, Baolin Chang, Zhihua Wei, Hongtao Yu, Rongrong Tian, Ling Yuan, Hongxing Jin

Abstract

The aim of this study is to evaluate the value of (18)F-FDG uptake features in the diagnosis of solitary pulmonary lesions. One hundred thirty-nine patients with solitary pulmonary lesions were divided into full uptake, circular uptake, multi-focus uptake, mild uptake, and no-uptake groups according to the uptake features of (18)F-FDG in solitary pulmonary lesions. The incidence of benign and malignant lesions and the false-positive and false-negative rates in each group were analyzed. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of the method using (18)F-FDG uptake features combined with maximum standard uptake value (SUVmax) (SUV method) in the differential diagnosis of solitary pulmonary lesions were evaluated. There were 89 malignant and 50 benign lesions. (1) The malignant incidence of the full uptake group was 84.0 % (63/75), and there were significant differences when compared with the other groups except the circular uptake group (16/23) (all P = 0.0001). The benign incidence of the multi-focus and no-uptake groups was 83.3 % (10/12) and 82.4 % (14/17), respectively, and there were significant differences when compared with the full uptake and the circular uptake groups, respectively (all P < 0.05). The benign incidence of the mild uptake group was 58.3 % (7/12), and there were no significant differences when compared with the others except the full uptake group (all P > 0.05). No statistical significance was found between either two of the no-uptake, mild uptake, and multi-focus uptake groups (all P > 0.05). (2) In cases with SUVmax ≥2.5, the false-positive rate in the multi-focus uptake group was 83.3 % (10/12), which was significantly higher than in the full uptake (12/75) or circular uptake group (7/23) (all P < 0.05). In cases with SUVmax <2.5, the false-negative rates in the mild and no-uptake groups were 41.7 and 17.6 % (P = 0.218). (3) The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, PPV, and NPV of the method using (18)F-FDG uptake features combined with SUVmax and the single SUV method were 88.7 %/91.0 %, 62.0 %/42.0 %, 79.1 %/73.4 %, 80.6 %/73.6 %, and 75.6 %/72.4 %, respectively. The method using uptake features of (18)F-FDG combined with SUVmax can improve the diagnostic specificity and accuracy of solitary pulmonary lesions. The multi-focus uptake feature maybe a benign sign, which still needs more researches to confirm.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 10 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 40%
Researcher 3 30%
Lecturer 1 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 10%
Unknown 1 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 60%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 10%
Unknown 2 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 16 September 2015.
All research outputs
#16,722,190
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Surgical Oncology
#573
of 2,145 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,095
of 281,198 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Surgical Oncology
#7
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,145 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 281,198 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.