Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,111

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Preoperative Staging of Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer with Positron-Emission Tomography

Open access
Pieterman, Remge M., van Putten, John W.G., Meuzelaar, Jacobus J., Mooyaart, Eduard L., Vaalburg, Willem, Koëter, Gerard H., Fidler, Vaclav, Pruim, Jan, Groen, Harry J.M.·2000·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Determining the stage of non-small-cell lung cancer often requires multiple preoperative tests and invasive procedures. Whole-body positron-emission tomography (PET) may simplify and improve the evaluation of patients with this tumor. METHODS: We prospectively compared the ability of a standard approach to staging (computed tomography [CT], ultrasonography, bone scanning, and, when indicated, needle biopsies) and one involving PET to detect metastases in mediastinal lymph nodes and at distant sites in 102 patients with resectable non-small-cell lung cancer. The presence of mediastinal metastatic disease was confirmed histopathologically. Distant metastases that were detected by PET were further evaluated by standard imaging tests and biopsies. Patients were followed postoperatively for six months by standard methods to detect occult metastases. Logistic-regression analysis was used to evaluate the ability of PET and CT to identify malignant mediastinal lymph nodes. RESULTS: The sensitivity and specificity of PET for the detection of mediastinal metastases were 91 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 81 to 100 percent) and 86 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 78 to 94 percent), respectively. The corresponding values for CT were 75 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 60 to 90 percent) and 66 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 55 to 77 percent). When the results of PET and CT were adjusted for each other, only PET results were positively correlated with the histopathological findings in mediastinal lymph nodes (P<0.001). PET identified distant metastases that had not been found by standard methods in 11 of 102 patients. The sensitivity and specificity of PET for the detection of both mediastinal and distant metastatic disease were 95 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 88 to 100 percent) and 83 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 74 to 92 percent), respectively. The use of PET to identify the stage of the disease resulted in a different stage from the one determined by standard methods in 62 patients: the stage was lowered in 20 and raised in 42. CONCLUSIONS: PET improves the rate of detection of local and distant metastases in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer.

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 · 10.1056/nejm200007273430404

Cites

1 of 1 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

Cited by

See all 1,111

Metadata

Authors
Pieterman, R. M., van Putten, J. W. G., Meuzelaar, J. J., Mooyaart, E. L., Vaalburg, W., Koëter, G. H., Fidler, V., Pruim, J., & Groen, H. J. M.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2000-07-27
Volume
343
Issue
4
Pages
254-261
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2339934527
Cited by
1,111
References
1
FWCI
68.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Preoperative Staging of Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer with Positron-Emission Tomography. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm200007273430404
The paper
Pieterman, R. M., van Putten, J. W. G., Meuzelaar, J. J., Mooyaart, E. L., Vaalburg, W., Koëter, G. H., Fidler, V., Pruim, J., & Groen, H. J. M. (2000). Preoperative Staging of Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer with Positron-Emission Tomography. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm200007273430404

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.