↓ Skip to main content

The presurgical T staging of non-small cell lung cancer: efficacy comparison of 64-MDCT and 3.0 T MRI

Overview of attention for article published in Cancer Imaging, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 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 presurgical T staging of non-small cell lung cancer: efficacy comparison of 64-MDCT and 3.0 T MRI
Published in
Cancer Imaging, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s40644-015-0050-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wei Tang, Ning Wu, Han OuYang, Yao Huang, Li Liu, Meng Li

Abstract

Lung cancer has been the main concern of the cancer-related deaths worldwide. Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is reported the most common subtype of lung cancer. Initial staging of NSCLC is highly associated with the choice of treatment and prognosis of the patients. This study aims to prospectively compare the diagnostic efficacies of 64-multidetector-row computed tomography (MDCT) and 3.0 T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in T staging of NSCLC.  Institutional review board approval and informed consent were obtained. Forty-five patients diagnosed with NSCLC who underwent preoperative MRI and MDCT scans were enrolled in the study. The efficacies of determination of T staging on MRI and MDCT were compared by using the McNemar test. Of 45 patients diagnosed with NSCLC, the primary tumors were correctly staged in 38 (84.4 %) patients on MDCT, and in 37 (82.2 %) patients on MRI. There was no statistically significant difference between the two modalities in the overall T staging of NSCLC with the reference of pathological findings (p = 0.564). However, MDCT was indicated more accurate in determination of NSCLC staged T1 and T2 (100 % vs 75 %, 96.4 % vs 82.1 %), whereas MRI was presented slightly superior in identification of NSCLC staged T3 and T4 (80 % vs 50 %, 100 % vs 33.3 %). Both MDCT and MRI provided acceptable overall accuracies in determination of T staging in NSCLC. Furthermore, MRI was presented slight superiority for the advanced-stage tumors (i.e., NSCLC staged T3 and T4), whereas MDCT was indicated mild acceptance for the limited-stage tumors (i.e., NSCLC staged T1 and T2).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 4 20%
Researcher 4 20%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 10%
Student > Master 2 10%
Student > Bachelor 1 5%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 5 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Materials Science 1 5%
Psychology 1 5%
Unknown 7 35%
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 26 October 2015.
All research outputs
#20,655,488
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Imaging
#445
of 674 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#203,280
of 276,996 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Imaging
#8
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 276,996 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 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.