Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 267

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Histopathologic Validation of Lymph Node Staging With FDG-PET Scan in Cancer of the Esophagus and Gastroesophageal Junction: A Prospective Study Based on Primary Surgery With Extensive Lymphadenectomy

Open access
Lerut, Toni, Flamen, Patrick, Ectors, Nadine, Van Cutsem, Erik, Peeters, Marc, Hiele, Martin, De Wever, Walter, Coosemans, Willy, Decker, Georges, De Leyn, Paul, Deneffe, Georges, Van Raemdonck, Dirk, Mortelmans, Luc·2000·Annals of Surgery

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the value of positron emission tomography with 18fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG-PET) for preoperative lymph node staging of patients with primary cancer of the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: FDG-PET appears to be a promising tool in the preoperative staging of cancer of the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction. Recent reports indicate a higher sensitivity and specificity for detection of stage IV disease and a higher specificity for diagnosis of lymph node involvement compared with the standard use of computed tomography and endoscopic ultrasound. METHODS: Forty-two patients entered the prospective study. All underwent attenuation-corrected FDG-PET imaging of the neck, thorax, and upper abdomen, a spiral computed tomography scan, and an endoscopic ultrasound. The gold standard consisted exclusively of the histology of sampled nodes obtained by extensive two-field or three-field lymphadenectomies (n = 39) or from guided biopsies of suspicious distant nodes indicated by imaging (n = 3). RESULTS: The FDG-PET scan had lower accuracy for the diagnosis of locoregional nodes (N1-2) than combined computed tomography and endoscopic ultrasound (48% vs. 69%) because of a significant lack of sensitivity (22% vs. 83%). The accuracy for distant nodal metastasis (M+Ly), however, was significantly higher for FDG-PET than the combined use of computed tomography and endoscopic ultrasound (86% vs. 62%). Sensitivity was not significantly different, but specificity was greater (90% vs. 69%). The FDG-PET scan correctly upstaged five patients (12%) from N1-2 stage to M+Ly stage. One patient was falsely downstaged by FDG-PET scanning. CONCLUSIONS: FDG-PET scanning improves the clinical staging of lymph node involvement based on the increased detection of distant nodal metastases and on the superior specificity compared with conventional imaging modalities.

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 · 10.1097/00000658-200012000-00003

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 267

Metadata

Authors
Lerut, T., Flamen, P., Ectors, N., Van Cutsem, E., Peeters, M., Hiele, M., De Wever, W., Coosemans, W., Decker, G., De Leyn, P., Deneffe, G., Van Raemdonck, D., & Mortelmans, L.
Venue
Annals of Surgery
Published
2000-12
Volume
232
Issue
6
Pages
743-752
ISSN
0003-4932 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2041277174
Cited by
267
References
2
FWCI
16.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Histopathologic Validation of Lymph Node Staging With FDG-PET Scan in Cancer of the Esophagus and Gastroesophageal Junction: A Prospective Study Based on Primary Surgery With Extensive Lymphadenectomy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00000658-200012000-00003
The paper
Lerut, T., Flamen, P., Ectors, N., Van Cutsem, E., Peeters, M., Hiele, M., De Wever, W., Coosemans, W., Decker, G., De Leyn, P., Deneffe, G., Van Raemdonck, D., & Mortelmans, L. (2000). Histopathologic Validation of Lymph Node Staging With FDG-PET Scan in Cancer of the Esophagus and Gastroesophageal Junction: A Prospective Study Based on Primary Surgery With Extensive Lymphadenectomy. Annals of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000658-200012000-00003

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.