↓ Skip to main content

The Incremental Added Value of Including the Head in 18F-FDG PET/CT Imaging for Cancer Patients

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in oncology, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 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
The Incremental Added Value of Including the Head in 18F-FDG PET/CT Imaging for Cancer Patients
Published in
Frontiers in oncology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fonc.2013.00071
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amir G. Abdelmalik, Saud Alenezi, Razi Muzaffar, Medhat M. Osman

Abstract

Purpose: To assess the value of extending the routinely used base-of-skull (BOS) to upper-thigh field of view (FOV) to include the head on (18)F-FDG PET/CT in cancer patients. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 1000 consecutive top-of-head to foot PET/CT studies. Abnormalities above BOS were categorized as unsuspected or known and were correlated with pathology, MRI/CT, and clinical follow-up. Results: Of the 1000 patients, 102 (10.2%) had potentially significant findings above BOS. Of these, 70/102 (69%) were known and 32/102 (31%) were unsuspected. Of the patients with unsuspected findings, follow-up data was unavailable in 7/32 (22%) and abnormalities were confirmed in 25/32 (78%). Of the 25 confirmed unsuspected findings, 4/25 (16%) were false positives and 21/25 (84%) were true positives. Of these, 13/21 (62%) were confirmed metastatic, and 8/21 (38%) were benign. Unsuspected finding of brain metastasis changed the management in 11/13 (85%) and staging in 4/13 (31%). Conclusion: Including the head in PET/CT FOV incidentally detected clinically significant findings in 2.1% (21/1000) of patients. The detection of previously unsuspected metastasis had significant impact on patient management and provided more accurate staging.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
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 3 33%
Student > Bachelor 2 22%
Student > Postgraduate 1 11%
Other 1 11%
Unknown 2 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 33%
Arts and Humanities 1 11%
Chemistry 1 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 11%
Unknown 3 33%
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 21 April 2013.
All research outputs
#17,285,036
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in oncology
#8,023
of 22,416 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,604
of 288,986 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in oncology
#137
of 328 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,416 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 288,986 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 328 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 57% of its contemporaries.