Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 242

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Metabolic characterization of breast tumors with positron emission tomography using F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose.

Avril, N, Dose, J, Jänicke, F, Bense, S, Ziegler, S, Laubenbacher, C, Römer, W, Pache, H, Herz, M, Allgayer, B, Nathrath, W, Graeff, H, Schwaiger, M·1996·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic value of position emission tomographic (PET) imaging with F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) in differentiating between benign and malignant breast tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifty-one patients, with suspicious breast lesions newly discovered either by physical examination or by mammography, underwent PET imaging before exploratory surgery. FDG-PET images of the breast were analyzed visually and quantitatively for objective assessment of regional tracer uptake. RESULTS: Primary breast cancer was identified visually with a sensitivity of 68% to 94% and a specificity of 84% to 97% depending on criteria used for image interpretation. Quantitative analysis of FDG uptake in tumors using standardized uptake values (SUV) showed a significant difference between benign (1.4 +/- 0.5) and malignant (3.3 +/- 1.8) breast tumors (P < .01). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis exhibited a sensitivity of 75% and a specificity of 100% at a threshold SUV value of 2.5. Sensitivity increased to 92% with a corresponding specificity of 97% when partial volume correction of FDG uptake was performed based on independent anatomic information. CONCLUSION: PET imaging allowed accurate differentiation between benign and malignant breast tumors providing a high specificity. Sensitivity for detection of small breast cancer ( < 1 cm) was limited due to partial volume effects. Quantitative image analysis combined with partial volume correction may be necessary to exploit fully the diagnostic accuracy. PET imaging may be helpful as a complimentary method in a subgroup of patients with indeterminate results of conventional breast imaging.

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.1996.14.6.1848

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 242

Metadata

Authors
Avril, N., Dose, J., Jänicke, F., Bense, S., Ziegler, S., Laubenbacher, C., Römer, W., Pache, H., Herz, M., Allgayer, B., Nathrath, W., Graeff, H., & Schwaiger, M.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
1996-06
Volume
14
Issue
6
Pages
1848-1857
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2166767348
Cited by
242
References
2
FWCI
13.19
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 characterization of breast tumors with positron emission tomography using F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.1996.14.6.1848
The paper
Avril, N., Dose, J., Jänicke, F., Bense, S., Ziegler, S., Laubenbacher, C., Römer, W., Pache, H., Herz, M., Allgayer, B., Nathrath, W., Graeff, H., & Schwaiger, M. (1996). Metabolic characterization of breast tumors with positron emission tomography using F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.1996.14.6.1848

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.