Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 540

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

Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer: Dual-Modality PET/CT in Preoperative Staging

Antoch, Gerald, Stattaus, Jörg, Nemat, Andre T., Marnitz, Simone, Beyer, Thomas, Kuehl, Hilmar, Bockisch, Andreas, Debatin, Jörg F., Freudenberg, Lutz S.·2003·Radiology

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine the accuracy of dual-modality positron emission tomographic (PET)-computed tomographic (CT) imaging, as compared with PET alone and CT alone, in the staging of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-seven patients with NSCLC underwent staging with combined fluorine 18 fluorodeoxyglucose PET and CT. CT, PET, and coregistered PET/CT images were evaluated separately by two different physicians for each imaging modality, and disease stage was determined by using TNM and American Joint Committee on Cancer staging systems. Histopathologic results served as the reference standard. The statistical significance of differences among CT, PET, and PET/CT was determined by using the McNemar test. RESULTS: Overall tumor stage was correctly classified as 0-IV with CT in 19 patients, with PET in 20 patients, and with PET/CT in 26 patients. PET/CT findings when compared with PET findings led to a treatment change for four patients (15%) and when compared with CT findings led to a treatment change for five patients (19%). Differences in the accuracy of overall tumor staging between PET/CT and CT (P =.008) and between PET/CT and PET (P =.031) were significant. Primary tumor stage was correctly determined in more patients with PET/CT than with either PET alone or CT alone. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of regional lymph node staging, respectively, were 89%, 94%, 89%, 94%, and 93%, with PET/CT; 89%, 89%, 80%, 94%, and 89% with PET; and 70%, 59%, 50%, 77%, and 63% with CT. Fourteen distant metastases were detected in four patients with CT, four were detected in two patients with PET, and 17 were detected in four patients with PET/CT. CONCLUSION: Use of dual-modality PET/CT significantly increases the number of patients with correctly staged NSCLC and thus has a positive effect on treatment.

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 · 10.1148/radiol.2292021598

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 540

Metadata

Authors
Antoch, G., Stattaus, J., Nemat, A. T., Marnitz, S., Beyer, T., Kuehl, H., Bockisch, A., Debatin, J. F., & Freudenberg, L. S.
Venue
Radiology
Published
2003-11
Volume
229
Issue
2
Pages
526-533
ISSN
  • 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-1315
OpenAlex
W2150992047
Cited by
540
References
1
FWCI
32.35
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: Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer: Dual-Modality PET/CT in Preoperative Staging. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1148/radiol.2292021598
The paper
Antoch, G., Stattaus, J., Nemat, A. T., Marnitz, S., Beyer, T., Kuehl, H., Bockisch, A., Debatin, J. F., & Freudenberg, L. S. (2003). Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer: Dual-Modality PET/CT in Preoperative Staging. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2292021598

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.