↓ Skip to main content

Distant metastasis detected by routine staging in breast cancer patients participating in the national German screening programme: consequences for clinical practice

Overview of attention for article published in SpringerPlus, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
11 Mendeley
Title
Distant metastasis detected by routine staging in breast cancer patients participating in the national German screening programme: consequences for clinical practice
Published in
SpringerPlus, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40064-016-2703-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rusch, Peter, Hoffmann, Oliver, Stickelmann, Anna-L, Böhmer, Stephan, Gätje, Regine, Krüger, Karl G, Niesert, Stefan, Schmidt, Andrea, Kimmig, Rainer

Abstract

To determine frequency of routine radiological staging of breast cancer patients diagnosed in a German Breast Cancer Screening Center from 2007 to 2014, the incidence and consequences of distant metastases detected and the resulting implications for clinical routine. Records of 896 patients with primary breast cancer diagnosed in the Screening Centre and treated in five participating hospitals were analyzed retrospectively. Evaluation included frequency and type of staging procedures and results with respect to distant metastasis and their consequences on clinical management. 894/896 Patients (99.8 %) received staging for distant metastases by bone scintigraphy, chest X-ray and liver sonography and/or CT/MRT diagnostics. Distant metastasis was suggested In 6/894 patients but excluded in 3 by further diagnostics or clinical course. Thus, 3 (0.3 %) were clinically verified to have metastatic disease in bone (n = 2; both pT2) or in bone and lung (n = 1; cT4, cN3). Due to the low incidence of verified metastatic disease, the high false positive rate of staging procedures and the unfavorable cost/benefit ratio routine radiological staging should be completely omitted in asymptomatic breast cancer patients diagnosed in a breast cancer screening programme.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 11 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 2 18%
Researcher 2 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 18%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 9%
Lecturer 1 9%
Other 1 9%
Unknown 2 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 55%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 9%
Engineering 1 9%
Unknown 3 27%

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 12 July 2016.
All research outputs
#20,335,423
of 22,880,230 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#1,461
of 1,851 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#330,756
of 393,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#124
of 184 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,880,230 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 393,712 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 184 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.