The DOI matches its OpenAlex record.
Value of Positron Emission Tomography With [F-18]Fluorodeoxyglucose in Patients With Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Prospective Study
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess prospectively the value of fluor-18-deoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET), in addition to conventional diagnostic methods (CDM), as a staging modality in candidates for resection of colorectal liver metastases. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In 51 patients analyzed for resection of colorectal liver metastases, clinical management decisions were recorded after a complete work-up with CDM. Afterward, FDG-PET scans were performed and any change of clinical management according to FDG-PET results was carefully documented. Discordances between FDG-PET and CDM results were identified and related to the final diagnosis by histopathology, intraoperative findings, and follow-up. RESULTS: In 10 (20%) out of 51 patients, clinical management decisions based on CDM were changed after FDG-PET findings were known. FDG-PET detected unresectable pulmonary (n = 5) and hepatic metastases (n = 1) and ruled out extrahepatic (n = 2) and hepatic disease (n = 2). Due to FDG-PET, eight patients were spared unwarranted liver resection or laparotomy and two other patients were identified as candidates for liver resection. When the results of FDG-PET were regarded as decisive in a retrospective analysis, potential change of management was 29% (15 patients). FDG-PET and CDM showed discordant extrahepatic results in 11 patients (22%) and discordant hepatic results in eight patients (16%). Compared with CDM, FDG-PET resulted in true upstaging (n = 11), true downstaging (n = 5), false upstaging (n = 1), and false downstaging (n = 2). The detection rate of liver metastases on a lesion basis was generally better for computed tomography than for FDG-PET (80% v 65%); this was related to tumor size. CONCLUSION: FDG-PET as a complementary staging method improves the therapeutic management of patients with colorectal liver metastases, especially by detecting unsuspected extrahepatic disease.
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
Floriani, I., Torri, V., Rulli, E., Garavaglia, D., Compagnoni, A., Salvolini, L., & Giovagnoni, A. (2010) · Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging · doi:10.1002/jmri.22010 · Cited by 277
(2004) · PubMed · Cited by 211
PET and PET-CT for evaluation of colorectal carcinoma
Delbeke, D., & Martin, W. H. (2004) · Seminars in Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2004.03.006 · Cited by 110
Metadata
- Authors
- Ruers, T. J. M., Langenhoff, B. S., Neeleman, N., Jager, G. J., Strijk, S. P., Wobbes, T., Corstens, F. H. M., & Oyen, W. J. G.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Oncology
- Publisher
- Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
- Published
- 2002-01-15
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 388-395
- ISSN
- 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2042522459
- Cited by
- 293
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 19.93
- 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: Value of Positron Emission Tomography With [F-18]Fluorodeoxyglucose in Patients With Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Prospective Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.20.2.388
- The paper
- Ruers, T. J. M., Langenhoff, B. S., Neeleman, N., Jager, G. J., Strijk, S. P., Wobbes, T., Corstens, F. H. M., & Oyen, W. J. G. (2002). Value of Positron Emission Tomography With [F-18]Fluorodeoxyglucose in Patients With Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Prospective Study. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.20.2.388
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.
