Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 389

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

Neoadjuvant Therapy of Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Response Evaluation by Positron Emission Tomography

Open access
Brücher, Björn L.D.M., Weber, Wolfgang, Bauer, Markus, Fink, Ullrich, Avril, Norbert, Stein, Hubert J., Werner, Martin, Zimmerman, Frank, Siewert, J. Rüdiger, Schwaiger, Markus·2001·Annals of Surgery

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the use of positron emission tomography using [(18)F]-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG-PET) to assess the response to neoadjuvant radiotherapy and chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Imaging modalities, including endoscopy, endoscopic ultrasound, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging, currently used to evaluate response to neoadjuvant treatment in esophageal cancer do not reliably differentiate between responders and nonresponders. METHODS: Twenty-seven patients with histopathologically proven squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus, located at or above the tracheal bifurcation, underwent neoadjuvant therapy consisting of external-beam radiotherapy and 5-fluorouracil as a continuous infusion. FDG-PET was performed before and 3 weeks after the end of radiotherapy and chemotherapy (before surgery). Quantitative measurements of tumor FDG uptake were correlated with histopathologic response and patient survival. RESULTS: After neoadjuvant therapy, 24 patients underwent surgery. Histopathologic evaluation revealed less than 10% viable tumor cells in 13 patients (responders) and more than 10% viable tumor cells in 11 patients (nonresponders). In responders, FDG uptake decreased by 72% +/- 11%; in nonresponders, it decreased by only 42% +/- 22%. At a threshold of 52% decrease of FDG uptake compared with baseline, sensitivity to detect response was 100%, with a corresponding specificity of 55%. The positive and negative predictive values were 72% and 100%. Nonresponders to PET scanning had a significantly worse survival after resection than responders. CONCLUSION: FDG-PET is a valuable tool for the noninvasive assessment of histopathologic tumor response after neoadjuvant radiotherapy and chemotherapy.

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 · 10.1097/00000658-200103000-00002

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

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 389

Metadata

Authors
Brücher, B. L. D. M., Weber, W., Bauer, M., Fink, U., Avril, N., Stein, H. J., Werner, M., Zimmerman, F., Siewert, J. R., & Schwaiger, M.
Venue
Annals of Surgery
Published
2001-03
Volume
233
Issue
3
Pages
300-309
ISSN
0003-4932 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2020432987
Cited by
389
References
1
FWCI
26.08
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: Neoadjuvant Therapy of Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Response Evaluation by Positron Emission Tomography. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00000658-200103000-00002
The paper
Brücher, B. L. D. M., Weber, W., Bauer, M., Fink, U., Avril, N., Stein, H. J., Werner, M., Zimmerman, F., Siewert, J. R., & Schwaiger, M. (2001). Neoadjuvant Therapy of Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Response Evaluation by Positron Emission Tomography. Annals of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000658-200103000-00002

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.