Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 174

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The utility of positron emission tomography for the diagnosis and staging of recurrent esophageal cancer

Open access
Flamen, P., Lerut, A., Van Cutsem, E., Cambier, J.P., Maes, A., De Wever, W., Peeters, M., De Leyn, P., Van Raemdonck, D., Mortelmans, L.·2000·The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To study the utility of whole-body positron emission tomography with (18)F-fluoro-deoxy-D -glucose (FDG-PET) for the evaluation of recurrence after curative resection of cancer of the esophagus or gastroesophageal junction. METHODS Forty-one patients with a clinical or radiologic suspicion of recurrent disease underwent conventional diagnostic work-up, including a spiral computed tomographic scan, an endoscopic ultrasound, and a dedicated whole-body FDG-PET. PET lesions were classified as equivocal or suspicious recurrence. The conventional diagnostic work-up and PET findings were correlated with pathology or with radiologic and clinical follow-up. Equivocal lesions were classified as positive. RESULTS Forty recurrences were found in 33 patients. The lesions were perianastomotic (n = 9), regional (n = 12), and at distant sites (n = 19). For the diagnosis of a perianastomotic recurrence, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of FDG-PET were 100%, 57%, and 74%, versus 100%, 93%, and 96% for conventional diagnostic work-up, respectively (P = not significant). False-positive PET lesions were found in patients with a progressive anastomotic stenosis requiring repetitive endoscopic dilatation. For the diagnosis of regional and distant recurrences, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of PET were 94%, 82%, and 87%, versus 81% (P = not significant), 82% (P = not significant), and 81% (P =.0771) for conventional diagnostic work-up. All false-positive PET lesions (n = 4) had been reported as equivocal. On a patient base, PET provided additional information in 11 of 41 (27%) patients. A major impact on diagnosis was found in 5 patients with equivocal or negative findings on complete diagnostic work-up in whom PET provided a true-positive diagnosis. In 5 other patients the diagnosis was staged upward from localized to extended recurrent disease, and in 1 patient with an equivocal complete diagnostic work-up, PET correctly excluded malignancy. CONCLUSION FDG-PET allows a highly sensitive diagnosis and accurate whole-body staging of symptomatic recurrent esophageal cancer. Further studies in asymptomatic patients are needed to assess the potential benefit on survival.

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 · 10.1067/mtc.2000.110464

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 174

Metadata

Authors
Flamen, P., Lerut, A., Van Cutsem, E., Cambier, J. P., Maes, A., De Wever, W., Peeters, M., De Leyn, P., Van Raemdonck, D., & Mortelmans, L.
Venue
The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2000-12
Volume
120
Issue
6
Pages
1085-1092
ISSN
0022-5223 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2168303252
Cited by
174
References
0
FWCI
8.88
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: The utility of positron emission tomography for the diagnosis and staging of recurrent esophageal cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1067/mtc.2000.110464
The paper
Flamen, P., Lerut, A., Van Cutsem, E., Cambier, J. P., Maes, A., De Wever, W., Peeters, M., De Leyn, P., Van Raemdonck, D., & Mortelmans, L. (2000). The utility of positron emission tomography for the diagnosis and staging of recurrent esophageal cancer. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1067/mtc.2000.110464

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.