Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 605

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Metabolic monitoring of breast cancer chemohormonotherapy using positron emission tomography: initial evaluation.

Wahl, R L, Zasadny, K, Helvie, M, Hutchins, G D, Weber, B, Cody, R·1993·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

PURPOSE: We assessed the feasibility of noninvasive metabolic monitoring of cancer chemohormonotherapy using sequential quantitative positron emission tomographic (PET) scans of tumor glucose metabolism with the glucose analog 2-[18F]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eleven women with newly diagnosed primary breast cancers larger than 3 cm in diameter beginning a chemohormonotherapy program underwent a baseline and four follow-up quantitative PET scans during the first three cycles of treatment (days 0 to 63). Tumor response was sequentially determined clinically, radiographically, and then pathologically after nine treatment cycles. RESULTS: Eight patients had partial or complete pathologic responses. Their maximal tumor uptake of FDG assessed by PET decreased promptly with treatment to the following: day 8, 78 +/- 9.2% (P < .03); day 21, 68.1 +/- 7.5% (P < .025); day 42, 60 +/- 5.1% (P < .001); day 63, 52.4 +/- 4.4% (P < .0001) of the basal values. Tumor diameter did not decrease significantly during this period through 63 days. Prompt decreases in the FDG influx rate (K) from basal levels (from .019 to .014 mL/cm3/min) after 8 days of treatment (P < .02) and in the estimated rate of FDG phosphorylation to FDG-6-phosphate (k3) from .055 to .038 min-1 after 8 days of treatment (P < .02) to .029 +/- .004 min-1 at 21 days) (P < .02) were observed. Three nonresponding patients had no significant decrease in tumor uptake of FDG (81 +/- 18% of basal value), influx rate (.015 to .012 mL/cm3/min), or tumor size (81 +/- 12% of basal diameter) comparing basal versus 63-day posttreatment values. CONCLUSION: Quantitative FDG PET scans of primary breast cancers showed a rapid and significant decrease in tumor glucose metabolism after effective treatment was initiated, with the reduction in metabolism antedating any decrement in tumor size. No significant decrease in FDG uptake (SUV) after three cycles of treatment was observed in the nonresponding patients. FDG PET scanning has substantial promise as an early noninvasive metabolic marker of the efficacy of cancer treatment.

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 · 10.1200/jco.1993.11.11.2101

Cites

1 of 1 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 1 references

Cited by

See all 605

Metadata

Authors
Wahl, R. L., Zasadny, K., Helvie, M., Hutchins, G. D., Weber, B., & Cody, R.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
1993-11
Volume
11
Issue
11
Pages
2101-2111
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2225412566
Cited by
605
References
1
FWCI
7.95
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: Metabolic monitoring of breast cancer chemohormonotherapy using positron emission tomography: initial evaluation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.1993.11.11.2101
The paper
Wahl, R. L., Zasadny, K., Helvie, M., Hutchins, G. D., Weber, B., & Cody, R. (1993). Metabolic monitoring of breast cancer chemohormonotherapy using positron emission tomography: initial evaluation. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.1993.11.11.2101

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.