The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography to Evaluate Cervical Node Metastases in Patients With Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Meta-analysis
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Positron emission tomography using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG PET) has been proposed to enhance preoperative assessment of cervical lymph node status in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). Management is most controversial for patients with a clinically negative (cN0) neck. We aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FDG PET in detecting lymph node metastases in patients with HNSCC. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of all available studies of the diagnostic performance of 18F-FDG PET in patients with HNSCC. We determined sensitivities and specificities across studies, calculated positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+ and LR-), and constructed summary receiver operating characteristic curves using hierarchical regression models. We also compared the performance of 18F-FDG PET with that of conventional diagnostic methods (ie, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and ultrasound with fine-needle aspiration) by analyzing studies that had also used these diagnostic methods on the same patients. RESULTS: Across 32 studies (1236 patients), 18F-FDG PET sensitivity was 79% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 72% to 85%) and specificity was 86% (95% CI = 83% to 89%). For cN0 patients, sensitivity of 18F-FDG PET was only 50% (95% CI = 37% to 63%), whereas specificity was 87% (95% CI = 76% to 93%). Overall, LR+ was 5.84 (95% CI = 4.59 to 7.42) and LR- was 0.24 (95% CI = 0.17 to 0.33). In studies in which both 18F-FDG PET and conventional diagnostic tests were performed, sensitivity and specificity of 18F-FDG PET were 80% and 86%, respectively, and of conventional diagnostic tests were 75% and 79%, respectively. CONCLUSION: 18F-FDG PET has good diagnostic performance in the overall pretreatment evaluation of patients with HNSCC but still does not detect disease in half of the patients with metastasis and cN0.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 · Cited by 10,505
Self-citation
Cited by
Metabolic positron emission tomography imaging in cancer detection and therapy response
Zhu, A., Lee, D., & Shim, H. (2011) · Seminars in Oncology · doi:10.1053/j.seminoncol.2010.11.012 · Cited by 368
Pak, K., Cheon, G. J., Nam, H.-Y., Kim, S.-J., Kang, K. W., Chung, J.-K., Kim, E. E., & Lee, D. S. (2014) · Journal of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.2967/jnumed.113.133801 · Cited by 301
Ho, F. C., Tham, I. W., Earnest, A., Lee, K. M., & Lu, J. J. (2012) · BMC Cancer · doi:10.1186/1471-2407-12-98 · Cited by 300
Metadata
- Authors
- Kyzas, P. A., Evangelou, E., Denaxa-Kyza, D., & Ioannidis, J. P. A.
- Venue
- JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2008-05-21
- Volume
- 100
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 712-720
- ISSN
- 0027-8874 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2105
- OpenAlex
- W2134235092
- Cited by
- 364
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 4.28
- 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: 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography to Evaluate Cervical Node Metastases in Patients With Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jnci/djn125
- The paper
- Kyzas, P. A., Evangelou, E., Denaxa-Kyza, D., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2008). 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography to Evaluate Cervical Node Metastases in Patients With Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Meta-analysis. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djn125
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.