Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 551

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Whole-Body Dual-Modality PET/CT and Whole-Body MRI for Tumor Staging in Oncology

Antoch, Gerald·2003·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: Deciding on the appropriate therapy for patients with malignant diseases mandates accurate tumor staging with whole-body coverage. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and a combined modality including positron emission tomography (PET) and computed tomography (CT) provide whole-body tumor staging in a single session. OBJECTIVE: To determine the staging accuracies of both whole-body PET/CT and whole-body MRI for different malignant diseases. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Prospective, blinded, investigator-initiated study of 98 patients (mean age, 58 years; range, 27-94 years) with various oncological diseases who underwent back-to-back whole-body glucose analog [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose-PET/CT and whole-body MRI for tumor staging. The study was conducted at a university hospital from December 2001 through October 2002 and had a mean follow-up of 273 days (range, 75-515 days). The images were evaluated by 2 different, blinded reader teams. The diagnostic accuracies of the 2 imaging procedures were compared. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Correct classification of the primary tumor, regional lymph nodes, and distant metastasis (overall TNM stage) using whole-body PET/CT and whole-body MRI. Secondary outcome measures were accurate assessment of T-stage, N-stage, and M-stage by the 2 imaging procedures. RESULTS: Of 98 patients, the overall TNM stage was correctly determined in 75 with PET/CT (77%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 67%-85%) and in 53 with MRI (54%; 95% CI, 44%-64%) (P<.001). Compared with MRI, PET/CT had a direct impact on patient management in 12 patients. Results from MRI changed the therapy regimen in 2 patients compared with PET/CT. Separate assessment of T-stage (with pathological verification) in 46 patients revealed PET/CT to be accurate in 37 (80%; 95% CI, 66%-91%) and MRI to be accurate in 24 (52%; 95% CI, 37%-67%) (P<.001). Of 98 patients, N-stage was correctly determined in 91 patients with PET/CT (93%; 95% CI, 86%-97%) and in 77 patients with MRI (79%; 95% CI, 69%-86%) (P =.001). Both imaging procedures showed a similar performance in detecting distant metastases. CONCLUSIONS: The feasibility and diagnostic accuracy of the whole-body staging strategies of PET/CT and MRI are established. Superior performance in overall TNM staging suggests the use of [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose-PET/CT as a possible first-line modality for whole-body tumor staging.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.290.24.3199

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 551

Metadata

Authors
Antoch, G.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2003-12-24
Volume
290
Issue
24
Pages
3199
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2151669991
Cited by
551
References
0
FWCI
22.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Whole-Body Dual-Modality PET/CT and Whole-Body MRI for Tumor Staging in Oncology. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.290.24.3199
The paper
Antoch, G. (2003). Whole-Body Dual-Modality PET/CT and Whole-Body MRI for Tumor Staging in Oncology. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.290.24.3199

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.