↓ Skip to main content

Successful treatment with the mTOR inhibitor everolimus in a patient with Perivascular epithelioid cell tumor

Overview of attention for article published in World Journal of Surgical Oncology, September 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
57 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 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
Successful treatment with the mTOR inhibitor everolimus in a patient with Perivascular epithelioid cell tumor
Published in
World Journal of Surgical Oncology, September 2012
DOI 10.1186/1477-7819-10-181
Pubmed ID
Authors

Constantine Gennatas, Vasiliki Michalaki, Paraskevi Vasilatou Kairi, Agathi Kondi-Paphiti, Dionysios Voros

Abstract

Perivascular epithelioid cell tumor (PEComa) is an extremely rare neoplasm that appears to arise most commonly at visceral (especially gastrointestinal and uterine), retroperitoneal, and abdominopelvic sites. Malignant PEComas exist but are very rare. These tumors represent a family of mesenchymal neoplasms, mechanistically linked through activation of the mTOR signaling pathway. Metastatic PEComa is a rare form of sarcoma for which no effective therapy has been described previously and that has a uniformly fatal outcome. Although there is no known effective therapy, the molecular pathophysiology of aberrant mTOR signaling provides a scientific rationale to target this pathway therapeutically. The difficulty in determining optimal therapy, owing to the sparse literature available, led us to present this case. On this basis, we report a case of metastatic retroperitoneal PEComa treated with an oral mTOR inhibitor, with everolimus achieving significant clinical response.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 21%
Other 4 17%
Researcher 4 17%
Professor 2 8%
Student > Master 2 8%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 5 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 63%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Unknown 6 25%
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 September 2012.
All research outputs
#15,249,959
of 22,675,759 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Surgical Oncology
#611
of 2,038 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#106,835
of 169,045 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Surgical Oncology
#10
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,675,759 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 169,045 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 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 74% of its contemporaries.