| Title |
Extracutaneous melanomas: a primer for the radiologist
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Insights into Imaging, September 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13244-015-0427-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Abhishek R. Keraliya, Katherine M. Krajewski, Marta Braschi-Amirfarzan, Sree Harsha Tirumani, Atul B. Shinagare, Jyothi P. Jagannathan, Nikhil H. Ramaiya |
| Abstract |
The purpose of this article is to provide a comprehensive review of the imaging features of extracutaneous melanomas. Extracutaneous melanomas are clinically and biologically distinct from their more common cutaneous counterpart with higher frequency of metastatic disease and poorer overall prognosis. Complete surgical excision is the treatment of choice whenever possible; systemic therapy in the form of conventional chemotherapeutic agents as well as novel targeted agents is used for advanced/ metastatic disease. Multiple imaging modalities including US, CT, MRI and FDG-PET/CT play important roles in the evaluation of the primary tumour, assessment of metastatic disease and monitoring response to treatment. Radiologists should be aware of the typical imaging manifestations of extracutaneous melanoma, the distinct patterns of metastatic involvement as well as treatment response and toxicities associated with newer molecular targeted and immunotherapies to optimally contribute to patient management. • Mucosal melanoma is clinically and biologically distinct from cutaneous melanoma. • Mucosal melanoma has a higher rate of metastatic disease than the cutaneous subtype. • Imaging is helpful in assessment of disease and response to treatment. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Cyprus | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 4 | 17% |
| Researcher | 4 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 13% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 13% |
| Unknown | 7 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 63% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Engineering | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 6 | 25% |
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 19 April 2017.
All research outputs
#21,699,788
of 24,217,893 outputs
Outputs from Insights into Imaging
#946
of 1,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#231,960
of 271,426 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Insights into Imaging
#17
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,217,893 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 1,072 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. 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 271,426 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 18 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.