The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Preoperative Staging of Gastric Adenocarcinoma: Comparison of Helical CT and Endoscopic US
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the performance of helical computed tomography (CT) and endoscopic ultrasonography (US) in the preoperative staging of gastric cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-one consecutive patients with a primary malignant gastric tumor (stage T2-T4) were preoperatively evaluated with both helical CT and endoscopic US within 3 days. Each tumor was staged according to the TNM classification system with both modalities. All patients subsequently underwent surgery. Results of CT and endoscopic US were compared with histologic staging of tumor invasion depth and regional lymph node metastasis. For comparison of CT and endoscopic US data, the marginal homogeneity test was used, and a P value of less than.05 was determined to indicate statistical significance. RESULTS: In comparison with histologic results, CT achieved correct T staging in 39 patients (76%) and correct N staging in 35 patients (70%). The corresponding results for endoscopic US achieved correct T staging in 44 patients (86%) and correct N staging in 45 patients (90%). There was no significant difference between T staging (P =.55) and N staging (P >.99). Because of challenging detection of wall layers, correct T staging was difficult for CT and endoscopic US in the differentiation of T2 and T3 lesions. CONCLUSION: Compared with endoscopic US, helical CT focused on the stomach provides valuable results regarding T and N staging in patients with gastric 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.
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
The Japanese Research Society for Gastric Cancer, & Kajitani, T. (1981) · The Japanese Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1007/bf02468883 · Cited by 1,201
Boring, C. C., Squires, T. S., & Tong, T. (1991) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/canjclin.41.1.19 · Cited by 617
Kelly, S., Harris, K. M., Berry, E., Hutton, J., Roderick, P., Cullingworth, J., Gathercole, L., & Smith, M. A. (2001) · Gut · doi:10.1136/gut.49.4.534 · Cited by 366
Vitamin E inhibits melanoma growth in mice
Malafa, M. P., Fokum, F. D., Mowlavi, A., Abusief, M., & King, M. (2002) · Surgery · doi:10.1067/msy.2002.119191 · Cited by 136
Cited by
Wang, F., Zhang, X., Li, Y., Tang, L., Qu, X., Ying, J., Zhang, J., Sun, L., Lin, R., Qiu, H., et al. (2021) · Cancer Communications · doi:10.1002/cac2.12193 · Cited by 624
Metadata
- Authors
- Habermann, C. R., Weiss, F., Riecken, R., Honarpisheh, H., Bohnacker, S., Staedtler, C., Dieckmann, C., Schoder, V., & Adam, G.
- Venue
- Radiology
- Published
- 2004-02
- Volume
- 230
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 465-471
- ISSN
- 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-1315
- OpenAlex
- W2037320229
- Cited by
- 261
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 10.67
- 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: Preoperative Staging of Gastric Adenocarcinoma: Comparison of Helical CT and Endoscopic US. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1148/radiol.2302020828
- The paper
- Habermann, C. R., Weiss, F., Riecken, R., Honarpisheh, H., Bohnacker, S., Staedtler, C., Dieckmann, C., Schoder, V., & Adam, G. (2004). Preoperative Staging of Gastric Adenocarcinoma: Comparison of Helical CT and Endoscopic US. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2302020828
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.