| Title |
Beyond PET/CT in Hodgkin lymphoma: a comprehensive review of the role of imaging at initial presentation, during follow-up and for assessment of treatment-related complications
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Insights into Imaging, April 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13244-015-0407-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Abhishek R. Keraliya, Sree Harsha Tirumani, Atul B. Shinagare, Nikhil H. Ramaiya |
| Abstract |
The purpose of this article is to provide a comprehensive review of the role of imaging modalities other than PET/CT in the management of Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). PET/CT is the imaging modality of choice in the management of Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL). However, imaging modalities other than PET/CT such as plain radiographs, ultrasound, CT, MRI and nuclear imaging can help in various stages of clinical management of HL, including the initial workup and post-treatment surveillance. Both CT and MRI help in detecting recurrences, treatment-related pulmonary, cardiovascular and abdominal complications as well as second malignancies. Familiarity with expected post-treatment changes and complications on surveillance images can help radiologists guide patient management. The purpose of this article is to provide a comprehensive review of the role of imaging modalities other than PET/CT in the management of Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). • Surveillance of HL patients is usually performed with plain radiographs and CT. • Follow-up imaging can depict normal post-treatment changes or treatment-related complications. • Imaging is important for the timely detection of second malignancies in HL patients. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 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 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 34 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 21% |
| Other | 6 | 18% |
| Researcher | 5 | 15% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 18% |
| Unknown | 4 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 74% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 6 | 18% |
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 29 April 2015.
All research outputs
#16,454,538
of 24,217,893 outputs
Outputs from Insights into Imaging
#729
of 1,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#161,591
of 268,487 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Insights into Imaging
#10
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,217,893 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 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 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 268,487 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.