Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 297

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 18 of the 18 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Utility of PET, CT, and EUS to Identify Pathologic Responders in Esophageal Cancer

Open access
Swisher, Stephen G., Maish, Mary, Erasmus, Jeremy J., Correa, Arlene M., Ajani, Jaffer A., Bresalier, Robert, Komaki, Ritsuko, Macapinlac, Homer, Munden, Reginald F., Putnam, Joe B., Rice, David, Smythe, W.Roy, Vaporciyan, Ara A., Walsh, Garrett L., Wu, Tsung T., Roth, Jack A.·2004·The Annals of Thoracic Surgery
DOI 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2004.04.046
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This study evaluates the utility of positron emission tomography (PET), endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), and computed tomographic (CT) scans to predict pathologic response and survival following preoperative chemoradiation (CRT) in esophageal cancer. METHODS: One hundred three sequential patients with locoregionally advanced esophageal cancer, who were treated with CRT and esophageal resection between May 2001 and November 2003 at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, were retrospectively reviewed. PET, EUS, and CT were performed before (pre) or after (post) CRT and before surgical resection. PET standardized uptake value (SUV) was defined as maximal uptake in primary tumor. RESULTS: Most patients were male (91 [88%]) with adenocarcinoma (90 [87%]). Pretreatment clinical stages were: IIA (42 [41%]), IIB (5 [5%]), III (50 [49%]), and IVA (6 [6%]). At the time of surgery, 58 patients (56%) had a pathologic response to CRT (< or =10% viable cells). Post-CRT measurements that correlated with pathologic response were: CT esophageal wall thickness (13.3 vs 15.3 mm, p = 0.04), EUS mass size (0.7 vs 1.7 cm, p = 0.01) and PET SUV (3.1 vs 5.8, p = 0.01). Post-CRT PET SUV equal to or greater than 4 had the highest accuracy for pathologic response (76%). Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analysis demonstrated that a post-CRT PET SUV equal to or greater than 4 was an independent predictor of survival (HR, 3.5, p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: The FDG-PET SUV is the most accurate noninvasive test to predict long-term survival after preoperative CRT and before surgical resection. Post-CRT FDG-PET cannot, however, rule out residual microscopic disease so esophagectomy should remain a therapeutic option even if the post-CRT imaging modalities are normal.

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 · 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2004.04.046

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 18 references

Cited by

See all 297

Metadata

Authors
Swisher, S. G., Maish, M., Erasmus, J. J., Correa, A. M., Ajani, J. A., Bresalier, R., Komaki, R., Macapinlac, H., Munden, R. F., Putnam, J. B., Rice, D., Smythe, W. R., Vaporciyan, A. A., Walsh, G. L., Wu, T. T., & Roth, J. A.
Venue
The Annals of Thoracic Surgery
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2004-10
Volume
78
Issue
4
Pages
1152-1160
ISSN
0003-4975 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.athoracsur.2004.04.046
OpenAlex
W1999769101
Cited by
297
References
18
FWCI
16.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: Utility of PET, CT, and EUS to Identify Pathologic Responders in Esophageal Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2004.04.046
The paper
Swisher, S. G., Maish, M., Erasmus, J. J., Correa, A. M., Ajani, J. A., Bresalier, R., Komaki, R., Macapinlac, H., Munden, R. F., Putnam, J. B., Rice, D., Smythe, W. R., Vaporciyan, A. A., Walsh, G. L., Wu, T. T., & Roth, J. A. (2004). Utility of PET, CT, and EUS to Identify Pathologic Responders in Esophageal Cancer. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2004.04.046

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.