The DOI matches its Crossref record; 15 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer: Prospective Comparison of Integrated FDG PET/CT and CT Alone for Preoperative Staging
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate prospectively the accuracy of integrated positron emission tomography (PET) and computed tomography (CT) with use of fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG), compared with that of stand-alone CT, for the preoperative staging of non-small cell lung cancer, with surgical and histologic findings used as the reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval and patient informed consent were obtained. From November 2003 to February 2004, 106 patients (78 men, 28 women; mean age, 56 years) with non-small cell lung cancer underwent curative surgical resection (tumor resection and lymph node dissection) after stand-alone CT followed by integrated FDG PET/CT. Tumor stages were determined by using the TNM and American Joint Committee on Cancer staging systems. Histopathologic results served as the reference standard. Statistically significant differences in tumor staging between integrated PET/CT and stand-alone CT were determined with P < .05 obtained by using the McNemar test or with a generalized estimating equation. RESULTS: The primary tumor was correctly staged in 84 patients (79%) at stand-alone CT and in 91 patients (86%) at integrated FDG PET/CT (P = .25). For the depiction of malignant nodes, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of CT were 70% (23 of 33 nodal groups), 69% (248 of 360), and 69% (271 of 393), respectively, whereas those of PET/CT were 85% (28 of 33), 84% (302 of 360), and 84% (330 of 393) (P = .25, P < .001, and P < .001, respectively). There were 112 false-positive interpretations at CT for 54 hilar, 16 subcarinal, 29 paratracheal, 10 subaortic, and two pulmonary ligament nodal groups and one upper paratracheal group, compared with only 58 false-positive interpretations at PET/CT for 32 hilar, seven subcarinal, 13 lower paratracheal, and six subaortic nodal groups. There were 10 false-negative interpretations at CT for four hilar, two lower paratracheal, and two subcarinal nodal groups, one prevascular and retrotracheal group, and one inferior pulmonary group, but only five false-negative interpretations at PET/CT (one each for paratracheal, subaortic, subcarinal, inferior pulmonary, and hilar nodal groups). CONCLUSION: Integrated FDG PET/CT is significantly better than stand-alone CT for lung cancer staging and provides enhanced accuracy and specificity in nodal staging.
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
Regional Lymph Node Classification for Lung Cancer Staging
Mountain, C. F., & Dresler, C. M. (1997) · Chest · doi:10.1378/chest.111.6.1718 · Cited by 1,439
Lardinois, D., Weder, W., Hany, T. F., Kamel, E. M., Korom, S., Seifert, B., von Schulthess, G. K., & Steinert, H. C. (2003) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa022136 · Cited by 1,416
Preoperative Staging of Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer with Positron-Emission Tomography
Pieterman, R. M., van Putten, J. W. G., Meuzelaar, J. J., Mooyaart, E. L., Vaalburg, W., Koëter, G. H., Fidler, V., Pruim, J., & Groen, H. J. M. (2000) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm200007273430404 · Cited by 1,111
Dwamena, B. A., Sonnad, S. S., Angobaldo, J. O., & Wahl, R. L. (1999) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiology.213.2.r99nv46530 · Cited by 649
McLoud, T. C., Bourgouin, P. M., Greenberg, R. W., Kosiuk, J. P., Templeton, P. A., Shepard, J. A., Moore, E. H., Wain, J. C., Mathisen, D. J., & Grillo, H. C. (1992) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiology.182.2.1732943 · Cited by 560
Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer: Dual-Modality PET/CT in Preoperative Staging
Antoch, G., Stattaus, J., Nemat, A. T., Marnitz, S., Beyer, T., Kuehl, H., Bockisch, A., Debatin, J. F., & Freudenberg, L. S. (2003) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2292021598 · Cited by 540
Wahl, R. L., Quint, L. E., Greenough, R. L., Meyer, C. R., White, R. I., & Orringer, M. B. (1994) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiology.191.2.8153308 · Cited by 430
Staging Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer with Whole-Body PET
Marom, E. M., McAdams, H. P., Erasmus, J. J., Goodman, P. C., Culhane, D. K., Coleman, R. E., Herndon, J. E., & Patz, E. F. (1999) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiology.212.3.r99se21803 · Cited by 384
Steinert, H. C., Hauser, M., Allemann, F., Engel, H., Berthold, T., von Schulthess, G. K., & Weder, W. (1997) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiology.202.2.9015071 · Cited by 376
Within-patient variability of (18)F-FDG: standardized uptake values in normal tissues.
Paquet, N., Albert, A., Foidart, J., & Hustinx, R. (2004) · PubMed · Cited by 257
Cited by
PET/CT imaging in cancer: current applications and future directions
Farwell, M. D., Pryma, D. A., & Mankoff, D. A. (2014) · Cancer · doi:10.1002/cncr.28860 · Cited by 230
Metadata
- Authors
- Shim, S. S., Lee, K. S., Kim, B.-T., Chung, M. J., Lee, E. J., Han, J., Choi, J. Y., Kwon, O. J., Shim, Y. M., & Kim, S.
- Venue
- Radiology
- Published
- 2005-09
- Volume
- 236
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 1011-1019
- ISSN
- 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-1315
- OpenAlex
- W2008664891
- Cited by
- 444
- References
- 15
- FWCI
- 27.87
- 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: Prospective Comparison of Integrated FDG PET/CT and CT Alone for Preoperative Staging. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1148/radiol.2363041310
- The paper
- Shim, S. S., Lee, K. S., Kim, B.-T., Chung, M. J., Lee, E. J., Han, J., Choi, J. Y., Kwon, O. J., Shim, Y. M., & Kim, S. (2005). Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer: Prospective Comparison of Integrated FDG PET/CT and CT Alone for Preoperative Staging. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2363041310
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.