Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 269

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Whole-Body18F Dopa PET for Detection of Gastrointestinal Carcinoid Tumors

Hoegerle, Stefan, Altehoefer, Carsten, Ghanem, Nadir, Koehler, Gabriele, Waller, Cornelius F., Scheruebl, Hans, Moser, Ernst, Nitzsche, Egbert·2001·Radiology

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1148/radiology.220.2.r01au25373

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 269

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.