The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A systematic review and meta‐analysis of the role of positron emission tomography in the follow up of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma following radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy
Abstract
Objectives: This review examines the effectiveness of positron emission tomography (PET) in the detection of recurrent or persistent head and neck squamous cell carcinoma after radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy. Design: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of trials of PET for detecting residual/recurrent head and neck squamous cell carcinoma treated by radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy. Trials were quality assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool for assessing diagnostic accuracy studies. Quantitative data were extracted and a bivariate random effects model used to calculate pooled sensitivity and specificity. Setting: Tertiary referral head and neck centre. Participants: Prospective and retrospective studies, excluding reviews, which included patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma who had fluorodeoxyglucose PET in the post‐treatment phase following primary treatment by radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy. Main outcomes measures: Quality assessment, sensitivity, specificity, false positive rates, false negative rates, positive and negative predictive values. Results: Twenty‐seven of 1871 identified studies were eligible for inclusion. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of PET for detecting residual or recurrent head and neck squamous cell carcinoma were 94% [95% confidence interval (CI), 87–97%] and 82% (95% CI, 76–86%) respectively. Positive and negative predictive values were 75% (95% CI, 68–82%), and 95% (95% CI, 92–97%) respectively. Sensitivity was greater for scans performed 10 weeks or more after treatment. Conclusions: Positron emission tomography is highly accurate in this role. However it is less sensitive early after treatment and has poor anatomical detail. PET may reduce the requirement for check endoscopies and planned neck dissections. A protocol for its use in post‐treatment surveillance is proposed.
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
Whiting, P., Rutjes, A. W., Reitsma, J. B., Bossuyt, P. M., & Kleijnen, J. (2003) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-3-25 · Cited by 3,592
Reitsma, J. B., Glas, A. S., Rutjes, A. W. S., Scholten, R. J. P. M., Bossuyt, P. M., & Zwinderman, A. H. (2005) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.02.022 · Cited by 3,369
Cited by
PET-CT Surveillance versus Neck Dissection in Advanced Head and Neck Cancer
Mehanna, H., Wong, W.-L., McConkey, C. C., Rahman, J. K., Robinson, M., Hartley, A. G. J., Nutting, C., Powell, N., Al-Booz, H., Robinson, M., et al. (2016) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1514493 · Cited by 632
Self-citationPak, 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
Metadata
- Authors
- Isles, M. G., McConkey, C., & Mehanna, H. M.
- Venue
- Clinical Otolaryngology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-06
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 210-222
- ISSN
- 0307-7772 (ISSN-L)
- 1749-4478
- 1749-4486
- OpenAlex
- W1969746706
- Cited by
- 321
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 3.79
- 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: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of the role of positron emission tomography in the follow up of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma following radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1749-4486.2008.01688.x
- The paper
- Isles, M. G., McConkey, C., & Mehanna, H. M. (2008). A systematic review and meta‐analysis of the role of positron emission tomography in the follow up of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma following radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy. Clinical Otolaryngology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-4486.2008.01688.x
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.