Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 582

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Preoperative Staging of Lung Cancer with Combined PET–CT

Open access
Fischer, Barbara, Lassen, Ulrik, Mortensen, Jann, Larsen, Søren, Loft, Annika, Bertelsen, Anne, Ravn, Jesper, Clementsen, Paul, Høgholm, Asbjørn, Larsen, Klaus, Rasmussen, Torben, Keiding, Susanne, Dirksen, Asger, Gerke, Oke, Skov, Birgit, Steffensen, Ida, Hansen, Hanne, Vilmann, Peter, Jacobsen, Grete, Backer, Vibeke, Maltbæk, Niels, Pedersen, Jesper, Madsen, Henrik, Nielsen, Henrik, Højgaard, Liselotte·2009·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Fast and accurate staging is essential for choosing treatment for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The purpose of this randomized study was to evaluate the clinical effect of combined positron-emission tomography and computed tomography (PET-CT) on preoperative staging of NSCLC. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients who were referred for preoperative staging of NSCLC to either conventional staging plus PET-CT or conventional staging alone. Patients were followed until death or for at least 12 months. The primary end point was the number of futile thoracotomies, defined as any one of the following: a thoracotomy with the finding of pathologically confirmed mediastinal lymph-node involvement (stage IIIA [N2]), stage IIIB or stage IV disease, or a benign lung lesion; an exploratory thoracotomy; or a thoracotomy in a patient who had recurrent disease or death from any cause within 1 year after randomization. RESULTS: From January 2002 through February 2007, we randomly assigned 98 patients to the PET-CT group and 91 to the conventional-staging group. Mediastinoscopy was performed in 94% of the patients. After PET-CT, 38 patients were classified as having inoperable NSCLC, and after conventional staging, 18 patients were classified thus. Sixty patients in the PET-CT group and 73 in the conventional-staging group underwent thoracotomy (P=0.004). Among these thoracotomies, 21 in the PET-CT group and 38 in the conventional-staging group were futile (P=0.05). The number of justified thoracotomies and survival were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The use of PET-CT for preoperative staging of NSCLC reduced both the total number of thoracotomies and the number of futile thoracotomies but did not affect overall mortality. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00867412.)

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/nejmoa0900043

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 582

Metadata

Authors
Fischer, B., Lassen, U., Mortensen, J., Larsen, S., Loft, A., Bertelsen, A., Ravn, J., Clementsen, P., Høgholm, A., Larsen, K., Rasmussen, T., Keiding, S., Dirksen, A., Gerke, O., Skov, B., Steffensen, I., Hansen, H., Vilmann, P., Jacobsen, G., Backer, V., Maltbæk, N., Pedersen, J., Madsen, H., Nielsen, H., & Højgaard, L.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2009-07-02
Volume
361
Issue
1
Pages
32-39
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2012992445
Cited by
582
References
0
FWCI
41.16
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 Lung Cancer with Combined PET–CT. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa0900043
The paper
Fischer, B., Lassen, U., Mortensen, J., Larsen, S., Loft, A., Bertelsen, A., Ravn, J., Clementsen, P., Høgholm, A., Larsen, K., Rasmussen, T., Keiding, S., Dirksen, A., Gerke, O., Skov, B., Steffensen, I., Hansen, H., Vilmann, P., Jacobsen, G., . . . Højgaard, L. (2009). Preoperative Staging of Lung Cancer with Combined PET–CT. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa0900043

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.