Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 246

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Gastric Cancer Staging at Multi–Detector Row CT Gastrography: Comparison of Transverse and Volumetric CT Scanning

Kim, Hye Jin, Kim, Ah Young, Oh, Seong Tae, Kim, Jung-Sun, Kim, Kyoung Won, Kim, Pyo Nyun, Lee, Moon-Gue, Ha, Hyun Kwon·2005·Radiology

Abstract

PURPOSE: To prospectively evaluate the accuracy of multi-detector row computed tomography (CT) gastrography for preoperative staging of gastric cancer, with pathologic and surgical results as the reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was approved by the institutional review board, and patients gave written informed consent. One hundred six patients (72 male, 34 female; mean age, 56 years) with endoscopically proved gastric cancer underwent unenhanced and contrast material-enhanced multi-detector row CT gastrography, with effervescent granules used as oral contrast material. Two experienced radiologists independently evaluated the depth of tumor invasion into the gastric wall (tumor staging), the involvement of regional lymph nodes (nodal staging), and the presence or absence of metastasis (metastatic staging) on transverse and volumetric CT images, which included images produced with multiplanar reformation and a virtual endoscopic technique. TNM staging of each tumor was compared with the pathologic and surgical results. Diagnostic accuracy in TNM staging was analyzed. RESULTS: Gastric cancer was detected in 92 (87%) of 106 study patients with transverse CT imaging and in 104 (98%) with volumetric CT imaging. The overall accuracy of the tumor staging was 77% with transverse CT imaging and 84% with volumetric CT imaging (P < .001). The overall accuracy for lymph node staging was 62% with transverse CT imaging and 64% with volumetric CT imaging (P = .057). For staging of metastases, there was no difference between transverse and volumetric CT imaging (86% for both) (P > .99). CONCLUSION: Multi-detector row CT gastrography with multiplanar reformation and virtual endoscopy, compared with transverse CT imaging, can improve the accuracy of preoperative staging of gastric cancer. This difference was significant for tumor staging but not for the staging of lymph nodes and metastases.

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.2363041101

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 246

Metadata

Authors
Kim, H. J., Kim, A. Y., Oh, S. T., Kim, J.-S., Kim, K. W., Kim, P. N., Lee, M.-G., & Ha, H. K.
Venue
Radiology
Published
2005-09
Volume
236
Issue
3
Pages
879-885
ISSN
  • 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-1315
OpenAlex
W2143786053
Cited by
246
References
0
FWCI
7.65
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: Gastric Cancer Staging at Multi–Detector Row CT Gastrography: Comparison of Transverse and Volumetric CT Scanning. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1148/radiol.2363041101
The paper
Kim, H. J., Kim, A. Y., Oh, S. T., Kim, J.-S., Kim, K. W., Kim, P. N., Lee, M.-G., & Ha, H. K. (2005). Gastric Cancer Staging at Multi–Detector Row CT Gastrography: Comparison of Transverse and Volumetric CT Scanning. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2363041101

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.