Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 305Medical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsRenal cell carcinoma treatmentRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Clinical Use of Fluorodeoxyglucose F 18 Positron Emission Tomography for Detection of Renal Cell Carcinoma

KANG, DAVID E., WHITE, RICHARD L., ZUGER, JAMES H., SASSER, HOWELL C., TEIGLAND, CHRIS M.·2004·Journal of Urology

Abstract

Purpose We evaluate the role of fluorodeoxyglucose F 18 positron emission tomography (PET) in patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) by retrospective review. To our knowledge this series is the largest reviewing the use of PET in patients with RCC. Materials and methods A total of 66 patients who underwent 90 PET scans for suspected or known RCC were identified. Dictated reports of PET, chest computerized tomography (CT), abdominal/pelvic CT and bone scan were examined with confirmation of results by histopathology or followup of at least 1 year. The accuracies of PET and conventional imaging modalities were compared. Results PET exhibited a sensitivity of 60% and specificity of 100% for primary RCC tumors (abdominal CT demonstrated 91.7% sensitivity and 100% specificity). For retroperitoneal lymph node metastases and/or renal bed recurrence, PET was 75.0% sensitive and 100.0% specific (92.6% sensitivity and 98.1% specificity for abdominal CT). PET had a sensitivity of 75.0% and a specificity of 97.1% for metastases to the lung parenchyma compared to 91.1% and 73.1%, respectively, for chest CT. PET had a sensitivity of 77.3% and specificity of 100.0% for bone metastases, compared to 93.8% and 87.2% for combined CT and bone scan. In 39 scans (32 patients) PET failed to detect RCC lesions identified by conventional imaging. Conclusions The role of fluorodeoxyglucose F 18 PET in the detection of RCC is limited by low sensitivity. With superior specificity PET may have a comple…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/01.ju.0000120241.50061.e4

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 14 references

Cited by

See all 305

Metadata

Authors
KANG, D. E., WHITE, R. L., ZUGER, J. H., SASSER, H. C., & TEIGLAND, C. M.
Affiliations
Carolinas Medical Center (US)
Venue
Journal of Urology
Published
2004-05
Volume
171
Issue
5
Pages
1806-1809
ISSN
  • 0022-5347 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-3792
OpenAlex
W2103792773
Cited by
305
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 20
FWCI
14.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • The Journal of Urology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Medical Imaging Techniques and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Renal cell carcinoma treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Keywords
renal cell carcinoma, tumor detection, diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity, retroperitoneal lymph node metastasis, lung metastasis, bone metastasis, abdominal CT, chest CT, bone scintigraphy
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Carcinoma, Renal Cell, Female, Humans, Kidney Neoplasms, Male, Middle Aged, Retrospective Studies, Tomography, Emission-Computed, Radiopharmaceuticals, Fluorodeoxyglucose F18

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: Clinical Use of Fluorodeoxyglucose F 18 Positron Emission Tomography for Detection of Renal Cell Carcinoma. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/01.ju.0000120241.50061.e4
The paper
KANG, D. E., WHITE, R. L., ZUGER, J. H., SASSER, H. C., & TEIGLAND, C. M. (2004). Clinical Use of Fluorodeoxyglucose F 18 Positron Emission Tomography for Detection of Renal Cell Carcinoma. Journal of Urology. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000120241.50061.e4

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.