| Title |
FDG-PET findings of Ameloblastoma: a case report
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
SpringerPlus, June 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40064-015-0998-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Satoshi Seno, Kazuhiro Kitajima, Go Inokuchi, Ken-ichi Nibu, Tomoo Itoh, Yasuo Ejima, Ryohei Sasaki, Koji Sugimoto, Kazuro Sugimura |
| Abstract |
Ameloblastoma is a benign odontogenic neoplasm of the jaw, rarely presenting as a malignant tumor. Although it is very important to discriminate ameloblastoma from ameloblastic carcinoma in order to decide the appropriate operative procedure, this is difficult using conventional CT and MRI. We report a case of maxillar ameloblastoma in a 78-year-old man where FDG-PET/CT was useful for making this discrimination. CT demonstrated a 31 × 43 × 46-mm mass in the left posterior maxillary sinus with destruction of its posterior and lateral wall and alveolar bone. MRI demonstrated a hypo- to isointense heterogeneous pattern on T1WI, heterogeneous hyperintensity with a prominent high-signal spot on T2WI, high signal intensity on DWI reflecting restricted diffusion, and strong heterogeneous enhancement. Because FDG-PET/CT showed mild FDG uptake (SUVmax 2.40) by the mass, ameloblastoma, rather than ameloblastic carcinoma, was considered to be the correct diagnosis. It appears that ameloblastic carcinoma shows intense FDG uptake, whereas ameloblastoma shows mild or moderate FDG uptake, and only rarely intense FDG uptake. Our experience suggests that FDG-PET/CT may be effective for discriminating ameloblastoma from ameloblastic carcinoma. Especially, in cases showing mild FDG uptake, benign ameloblastoma would seem the most likely diagnosis. FDG-PET/CT may be useful as an adjunctive modality for diagnosis, treatment planning and surveillance of ameloblastoma and ameloblastic carcinoma. |
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 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Egypt | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 16 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 18% |
| Other | 3 | 18% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 7 | 41% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 47% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 6% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 7 | 41% |
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 24 June 2015.
All research outputs
#15,338,777
of 22,815,414 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#932
of 1,851 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,666
of 266,807 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#36
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,815,414 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,851 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 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 266,807 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 83 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.