↓ Skip to main content

Systemic treatment in breast cancer: a primer for radiologists

Overview of attention for article published in Insights Into Imaging, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 Mendeley
Title
Systemic treatment in breast cancer: a primer for radiologists
Published in
Insights Into Imaging, November 2015
DOI 10.1007/s13244-015-0447-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aya Y. Michaels, Abhishek R. Keraliya, Sree Harsha Tirumani, Atul B. Shinagare, Nikhil H. Ramaiya

Abstract

Cytotoxic chemotherapy, hormonal therapy and molecular targeted therapy are the three major classes of drugs used to treat breast cancer. Imaging modalities such as computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), (18)F-FDG positron emission tomography (PET)/CT and bone scintigraphy each have a distinct role in monitoring response and detecting drug toxicities associated with these treatments. The purpose of this article is to elucidate the various systemic therapies used in breast cancer, with an emphasis on the role of imaging in assessing treatment response and detecting treatment-related toxicities. • Cytotoxic chemotherapy is often used in combination with HER2-targeted and endocrine therapies. • Endocrine and HER2-targeted therapies are recommended in hormone-receptor- and HER2-positive cases. • CT is the workhorse for assessment of treatment response in breast cancer metastases. • Alternate treatment response criteria can help in interpreting pseudoprogression in metastasis. • Unique toxicities are associated with cytotoxic chemotherapy and with endocrine and HER2-targeted therapies.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 50 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 10 20%
Student > Master 8 16%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Researcher 3 6%
Other 13 26%
Unknown 8 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 58%
Unspecified 2 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 10 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 12 December 2016.
All research outputs
#12,938,548
of 22,833,393 outputs
Outputs from Insights Into Imaging
#491
of 938 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#125,197
of 281,840 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Insights Into Imaging
#9
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,833,393 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 938 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 281,840 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.