Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 348

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Does the Novel PET/CT Imaging Modality Impact on the Treatment of Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer of the Liver?

Open access
Selzner, Markus, Hany, Thomas F., Wildbrett, Peer, McCormack, Lucas, Kadry, Zakiyah, Clavien, Pierre-Alain·2004·Annals of Surgery

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced CT (ceCT) and 2-[18-F]-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose-PET/CT in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer to the liver. BACKGROUND: Despite preoperative evaluation with ceCT, the tumor load in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer to the liver is often underestimated. Positron emission tomography (PET) has been used in combination with the ceCT to improve identification of intra- and extrahepatic tumors in these patients. We compared ceCT and a novel fused PET/CT technique in patients evaluated for liver resection for metastatic colorectal cancer. METHODS: Patients evaluated for resection of liver metastases from colorectal cancer were entered into a prospective database. Each patient received a ceCT and a PET/CT, and both examinations were evaluated independently by a radiologist/nuclear medicine physician without the knowledge of the results of other diagnostic techniques. The sensitivity and the specificity of both tests regarding the detection of intrahepatic tumor load, extra/hepatic metastases, and local recurrence at the colorectal site were determined. The main end point of the study was to assess the impact of the PET/CT findings on the therapeutic strategy. RESULTS: Seventy-six patients with a median age of 63 years were included in the study. ceCT and PET/CT provided comparable findings for the detection of intrahepatic metastases with a sensitivity of 95% and 91%, respectively. However, PET/CT was superior in establishing the diagnosis of intrahepatic recurrences in patients with prior hepatectomy (specificity 50% vs. 100%, P = 0.04). Local recurrences at the primary colo-rectal resection site were detected by ceCT and PET/CT with a sensitivity of 53% and 93%, respectively (P = 0.03). Extrahepatic disease was missed in the ceCT in one third of the cases (sensitivity 64%), whereas PET/CT failed to detect extrahepatic lesions in only 11% of the cases (sensitivity 89%) (P = 0.02). New findings in the PET/CT resulted in a change in the therapeutic strategy in 21% of the patients. CONCLUSION: PET/CT and ceCT provide similar information regarding hepatic metastases of colorectal cancer, whereas PET/CT is superior to ceCT for the detection of recurrent intrahepatic tumors after hepatectomy, extrahepatic metastases, and local recurrence at the site of the initial colorectal surgery. We now routinely perform PET/CT on all patients being evaluated for liver resection for metastatic colorectal cancer.

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 · 10.1097/01.sla.0000146145.69835.c5

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 348

Metadata

Authors
Selzner, M., Hany, T. F., Wildbrett, P., McCormack, L., Kadry, Z., & Clavien, P.-A.
Venue
Annals of Surgery
Published
2004-12
Volume
240
Issue
6
Pages
1027-1036
ISSN
0003-4932 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2033344656
Cited by
348
References
0
FWCI
22.46
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: Does the Novel PET/CT Imaging Modality Impact on the Treatment of Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer of the Liver? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/01.sla.0000146145.69835.c5
The paper
Selzner, M., Hany, T. F., Wildbrett, P., McCormack, L., Kadry, Z., & Clavien, P.-A. (2004). Does the Novel PET/CT Imaging Modality Impact on the Treatment of Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer of the Liver? Annals of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000146145.69835.c5

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.