↓ Skip to main content

Utility of Clinical Breast Examinations in Detecting Local–Regional Breast Events After Breast-Conservation in Women with a Personal History of High-Risk Breast Cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Surgical Oncology, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
7 Mendeley
Title
Utility of Clinical Breast Examinations in Detecting Local–Regional Breast Events After Breast-Conservation in Women with a Personal History of High-Risk Breast Cancer
Published in
Annals of Surgical Oncology, August 2016
DOI 10.1245/s10434-016-5483-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Heather B. Neuman, Jessica R. Schumacher, Amanda B. Francescatti, Taiwo Adesoye, Stephen B. Edge, Elizabeth S. Burnside, David J. Vanness, Menggang Yu, Yajuan Si, Dan McKellar, David P. Winchester, Caprice C. Greenberg

Abstract

Although breast cancer follow-up guidelines emphasize the importance of clinical examinations, prior studies suggest a small fraction of local-regional events occurring after breast conservation are detected by examination alone. Our objective was to examine how local-regional events are detected in a contemporary, national cohort of high-risk breast cancer survivors. A stage-stratified sample of stage II/III breast cancer patients diagnosed in 2006-2007 (n = 11,099) were identified from 1217 facilities within the National Cancer Data Base. Additional data on local-regional and distant breast events, method of event detection, imaging received, and mortality were collected. We further limited the cohort to patients with breast conservation (n = 4854). Summary statistics describe local-regional event rates and detection method. Local-regional events were detected in 5.5 % (n = 265) of patients. Eighty-three percent were ipsilateral or contralateral in-breast events, and 17 % occurred within ipsilateral lymph nodes. Forty-eight percent of local-regional events were detected on asymptomatic breast imaging, 29 % by patients, and 10 % on clinical examination. Overall, 0.5 % of the 4854 patients had a local-regional event detected on examination. Examinations detected a higher proportion of lymph node events (8/45) compared with in-breast events (18/220). No factors were associated with method of event detection. Clinical examinations, as an adjunct to screening mammography, have a modest effect on local-regional event detection. This contradicts current belief that examinations are a critical adjunct to mammographic screening. These findings can help to streamline follow-up care, potentially improving follow-up efficiency and quality.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 7 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 7 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 2 29%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 14%
Student > Postgraduate 1 14%
Researcher 1 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 14%
Other 1 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 43%
Unspecified 2 29%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 20 September 2016.
All research outputs
#1,390,380
of 12,419,165 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#299
of 2,896 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,633
of 262,764 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#21
of 157 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,419,165 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,896 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 262,764 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 157 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.