| Title |
FDG-PET/CT of sarcoidosis and sarcoid reactions following antineoplastic treatment
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
SpringerPlus, March 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/2193-1801-2-113 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kentaro Inoue, Ryoi Goto, Hideo Shimomura, Hiroshi Fukuda |
| Abstract |
Sarcoidosis or sarcoid reactions, which appear as FDG-avid lesions in oncologic patients, need to be differentiated from disseminated malignancies. We aimed to promote awareness of development of sarcoidosis or sarcoid reactions after antineoplastic therapy to avoid diagnostic errors with FDG-PET/CT findings and assess the utility of FDG-PET/CT for follow-up. We retrospectively reviewed radiological reports of FDG-PET/CT scans performed between January 2009 and December 2011. Among oncologic patients with more than 2 FDG-PET/CT scans, those with nearly symmetrical increases in FDG uptake in the hilar or mediastinal lymph nodes were identified, and those with known sarcoidosis, concurrent diagnoses of sarcoidosis with malignancy, or histopathologically proven malignancies were excluded. Then, only those cases were selected for which sarcoidosis or sarcoid reactions were diagnosed. Four of 376 oncologic cases met the criteria. At 9 months to 6 years after antineoplastic therapy, abnormal FDG uptakes were observed in the hilar, mediastinal, abdominal, pelvic, and inguinal nodes, and/or spleen and lung parenchyma with SUVmax up to 17.7. On the basis of these findings, 1 patient received anticancer chemotherapy because of tumor recurrence suspicion. A gradual decrease in FDG uptake was observed on subsequent PET/CT scans. Sarcoidosis or sarcoid reactions should be considered in differential diagnosis of oncologic patients who have developed FDG-avid lesions any time after antineoplastic therapy. FDG-PET/CT can be used for follow-up in nondiagnostic situations to detect decreases in FDG uptake due to presence of sarcoidal granulomas. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 27 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 26% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 11% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 11% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 15% |
| Unknown | 5 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 67% |
| Chemistry | 2 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 6 | 22% |
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 15 March 2013.
All research outputs
#20,185,720
of 22,701,287 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#1,461
of 1,852 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#171,784
of 196,095 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#65
of 130 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,701,287 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,852 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 196,095 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 130 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.