Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 4,002

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

High Performance of 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography and Contrast-Enhanced CT in a Rapid Outpatient Diagnostic Program for Patients with Suspected Lung Cancer

Open access
Brocken, Pepijn, van der Heijden, Henricus F.M., Dekhuijzen, P.N. Richard, Peters-Bax, Liesbeth, de Geus-Oei, Lioe-Fee·2014·Respiration

Abstract

Background: The diagnostic evaluation of patients presenting with possible lung cancer is often complex and time consuming. A rapid outpatient diagnostic program (RODP) including 18 F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) and contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) as a routine diagnostic tool may improve timeliness, however the diagnostic performance of such a combined approach of RODP remains unclear. Objectives: We evaluated timeliness of care and diagnostic performance of FDG-PET and contrast-enhanced CT (FDG-PET/CT) in an RODP for all patients referred with a chest X-ray suspicious of lung cancer. Methods: Charts of patients referred to the 2-day RODP of our tertiary care university clinic after an abnormal chest X-ray between 1999 and 2009 were reviewed. Between 1999 and 2005 co-registered FDG-PET and CT imaging took place; from September 2005 onwards, a hybrid system was used. We analyzed timeliness of care and diagnostic performance of FDG-PET/CT to differentiate malignant from benign lesions. Results: In 386 patients available for analysis, 260 were diagnosed with lung cancer and 23 had another type of malignancy; in 78 patients benign disease was confirmed, and in another 45 the diagnosis was not pathologically confirmed but a median 24.5-month follow-up confirmed a benign outcome. Sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values and accuracy of FDG-PET/CT to differentiate lung cancer from benign disease were 97.7, 60.2, 92.5, 84.0 and 85.8%, respectively. Lung cancer patients had a median referral, diagnostic and therapeutic delay of 7, 2 and 19 days, respectively. Conclusions: FDG-PET/CT in an RODP setting for suspected lung cancer has high performance in detecting cancer and facilitates timely care.

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 · 10.1159/000347096

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 4,002

Metadata

Authors
Brocken, P., van der Heijden, H. F. M., Dekhuijzen, P. N. R., Peters-Bax, L., & de Geus-Oei, L.-F.
Venue
Respiration
Publisher
S. Karger AG
Published
2013-04-16
Volume
87
Issue
1
Pages
32-37
ISSN
  • 0025-7931 (ISSN-L)
  • 1423-0356
OpenAlex
W1979538859
Cited by
4,002
References
4
FWCI
355.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: High Performance of 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography and Contrast-Enhanced CT in a Rapid Outpatient Diagnostic Program for Patients with Suspected Lung Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1159/000347096
The paper
Brocken, P., van der Heijden, H. F. M., Dekhuijzen, P. N. R., Peters-Bax, L., & de Geus-Oei, L.-F. (2014). High Performance of 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography and Contrast-Enhanced CT in a Rapid Outpatient Diagnostic Program for Patients with Suspected Lung Cancer. Respiration. https://doi.org/10.1159/000347096

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.