↓ Skip to main content

Centrally necrotizing breast carcinoma: a rare histological subtype, which was cause of misdiagnosis in an evident clinical local recurrence

Overview of attention for article published in World Journal of Surgical Oncology, August 2012
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 (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
9 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
Centrally necrotizing breast carcinoma: a rare histological subtype, which was cause of misdiagnosis in an evident clinical local recurrence
Published in
World Journal of Surgical Oncology, August 2012
DOI 10.1186/1477-7819-10-156
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fernando Hernanz, Pilar Alonso-Bartolomé, Irene González-Rodilla

Abstract

Centrally necrotizing carcinoma is a rare subtype of breast carcinoma, which is characterized by an extensive central necrotic zone accounting for at least 70% of the cross-sectional area of the neoplasm. This central necrotic zone, in turn, is surrounded by a narrow rim of proliferative viable tumor cells. We report an unusual clinical situation in which a patient whose evident breast mass suggested an ipsilateral local recurrence and for which numerous attempts to confirm the histological diagnosis had failed. The patient was treated with a radical mastectomy based on clinical suspicion of breast cancer recurrence after an undesirable delay. In this case, the narrow rim of viable malignant tissue had a thickness of 0.5 to 8 mm, and the centrally necrotizing carcinoma had a central zone with a predominance of fibrosis. The special features of this case led to a misdiagnosis and to an evident clinical local recurrence.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 9 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 11%
Student > Bachelor 1 11%
Student > Postgraduate 1 11%
Student > Master 1 11%
Unknown 5 56%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 2 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 11%
Unknown 5 56%
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 02 August 2012.
All research outputs
#14,148,857
of 22,673,450 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Surgical Oncology
#437
of 2,038 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#96,068
of 164,709 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Surgical Oncology
#9
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,673,450 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,038 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 164,709 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 66 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.