| 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | 25% |
| Cyprus | 1 | 25% |
| Rwanda | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
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 | 9 | 18% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 8% |
| Researcher | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 11 | 22% |
| Unknown | 9 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 30 | 60% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 2% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Unknown | 11 | 22% |
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
#13,881,202
of 24,217,893 outputs
Outputs from Insights into Imaging
#543
of 1,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,361
of 286,708 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Insights into Imaging
#9
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,217,893 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 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 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 286,708 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 53% 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.