↓ Skip to main content

Primary fallopian tube carcinoma: review of MR imaging findings

Overview of attention for article published in Insights into Imaging, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 Mendeley
Title
Primary fallopian tube carcinoma: review of MR imaging findings
Published in
Insights into Imaging, July 2015
DOI 10.1007/s13244-015-0416-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Filipe Veloso Gomes, João Lopes Dias, Rita Lucas, Teresa Margarida Cunha

Abstract

To review the epidemiological and clinical features of primary fallopian tube carcinoma (PFTC), and to illustrate the spectrum of MRI findings, with pathological confirmation. This article reviews the relevant literature on the epidemiological, clinical, and imaging features of primary fallopian tube carcinoma, with pathological confirmation, using illustrations from the authors' teaching files. Primary fallopian tube carcinoma came under focus over the last few years due to its possible role on the pathogenesis of high-grade serous epithelial ovarian and peritoneal cancers. Typical symptoms, together with the presence of some of the most characteristic MRI signs, such as a "sausage-shaped" pelvic mass, hydrosalpinx, and hydrometra, may signal the presence of primary fallopian cancer, and allow the radiologist to report it as a differential diagnosis. Primary fallopian tube carcinoma has a constellation of clinical symptoms and magnetic resonance imaging features, which may be diagnostic. Although these findings are not present together in the majority of cases, radiologists who are aware of them may include the diagnosis of primary fallopian tube cancer in their report more frequently and with more confidence. • PFTC may be more frequent than previously thought • PFTC has specific clinical and MRI characteristics • Knowledge of typical PFTC signs enables its inclusion in the differential diagnosis • PFTC is currently staged under the 2013 FIGO system • PFTC is staged collectively with ovarian and peritoneal neoplasms.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

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 %
Researcher 7 21%
Student > Postgraduate 5 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Lecturer 2 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 6 18%
Unknown 9 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 59%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 3%
Materials Science 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 10 29%
Attention Score in Context

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 07 July 2018.
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
#157,782
of 266,393 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Insights into Imaging
#8
of 9 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 266,393 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 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.