The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Whole-Body18F Dopa PET for Detection of Gastrointestinal Carcinoid Tumors
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate fluorine 18 (18F) dopa positron emission tomography (PET) in comparison with established imaging procedures in gastrointestinal carcinoid tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After evaluation of the normal distribution of 18F dopa, 17 patients with histologically confirmed tumors were examined with 18F dopa PET. Results of 2-[fluorine 18]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG) PET, somatostatin-receptor scintigraphy, and morphologic imaging (computed tomography and/or magnetic resonance imaging) were available for all patients. Results of the procedures were evaluated by two radiologists and two nuclear medicine specialists, whose consensus based on all available histologic, imaging, and follow-up findings was used as the reference standard. RESULTS: Ninety-two tumors were diagnosed: eight primary tumors, 47 lymph node metastases, and 37 organ metastases. 18F dopa PET led to 60 true-positive findings (seven primary tumors, 41 lymph node metastases, 12 organ metastases); FDG PET, 27 (two primary tumors, 14 lymph node metastases, 11 organ metastases); somatostatin-receptor scintigraphy, 52 (four primary tumors, 27 lymph node metastases, 21 organ metastases); and morphologic imaging, 67 (two primary tumors, 29 lymph node metastases, 36 organ metastases). This resulted in the following overall sensitivities: 18F dopa PET, 65% (60 of 92); FDG PET, 29% (27 of 92); somatostatin-receptor scintigraphy, 57% (52 of 92); morphologic procedures, 73% (67 of 92). Although the morphologic procedures were most sensitive for organ metastases, 18F dopa PET enabled best localization of primary tumors and lymph node staging. CONCLUSION: 18F dopa PET is a promising procedure and useful supplement to morphologic methods in diagnostic imaging of gastrointestinal carcinoid tumors.
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
Cited by
Endocrine tumours of the pancreas
Öberg, K., & Eriksson, B. (2005) · Best Practice & Research Clinical Gastroenterology · doi:10.1016/j.bpg.2005.06.002 · Cited by 543
Imaging of Neuroendocrine Tumors
Heller, M. T., & Shah, A. B. (2011) · Radiologic Clinics of North America · doi:10.1016/j.rcl.2011.02.011 · Cited by 329
Caplin, M., Sundin, A., Nillson, O., Baum, R. P., Klose, K. J., Kelestimur, F., Plöckinger, U., Papotti, M., Salazar, R., & Pascher, A. (2012) · Neuroendocrinology · doi:10.1159/000335594 · Cited by 301
Nuclear medicine in the detection and management of pancreatic islet-cell tumours.
Virgolini, I., Traub-Weidinger, T., & Decristoforo, C. (2005) · Best Practice & Research Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism · doi:10.1016/j.beem.2004.09.001 · Cited by 93
Nesidioblastosis with Glucagon-Reactive Islet Cell Hyperplasia: A Case Report
Martignoni, M. E., Kated, H., Stiegler, M., Büchler, M. W., Friess, H., Zimmermann, A., Schirp, U., & Nitzsche, E. U. (2003) · Pancreas · doi:10.1097/00006676-200305000-00016 · Cited by 17
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Hoegerle, S., Altehoefer, C., Ghanem, N., Koehler, G., Waller, C. F., Scheruebl, H., Moser, E., & Nitzsche, E.
- Venue
- Radiology
- Published
- 2001-08
- Volume
- 220
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 373-380
- ISSN
- 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-1315
- OpenAlex
- W2160684534
- Cited by
- 269
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 6.42
- 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: Whole-Body18F Dopa PET for Detection of Gastrointestinal Carcinoid Tumors. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1148/radiology.220.2.r01au25373
- The paper
- Hoegerle, S., Altehoefer, C., Ghanem, N., Koehler, G., Waller, C. F., Scheruebl, H., Moser, E., & Nitzsche, E. (2001). Whole-Body18F Dopa PET for Detection of Gastrointestinal Carcinoid Tumors. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.220.2.r01au25373
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.