Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 571

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

Utility of Positron Emission Tomography for the Staging of Patients With Potentially Operable Esophageal Carcinoma

Flamen, P., Lerut, A., Van Cutsem, E., De Wever, W., Peeters, M., Stroobants, S., Dupont, P., Bormans, G., Hiele, M., De Leyn, P., Van Raemdonck, D., Coosemans, W., Ectors, N., Haustermans, K., Mortelmans, L.·2000·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

PURPOSE: A prospective study of preoperative tumor-node-metastasis staging of patients with esophageal cancer (EC) was designed to compare the accuracy of 18-F-fluoro-deoxy-d-glucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) with conventional noninvasive modalities. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seventy-four patients with carcinomas of the esophagus (n = 43) or gastroesophageal junction (n = 31) were studied. All patients underwent attenuation-corrected FDG-PET imaging, a spiral computed tomography (CT) scan, and an endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). RESULTS: FDG-PET demonstrated increased activity in the primary tumor in 70 of 74 patients (sensitivity: 95%). False-negative PET images were found in four patients with T1 lesions. Thirty-four patients (46%) had stage IV disease. FDG-PET had a higher accuracy for diagnosing stage IV disease compared with the combination of CT and EUS (82% v 64%, respectively; P = .004). FDG-PET had additional diagnostic value in 16 (22%) of 74 patients by upstaging 11 (15%) and downstaging five (7%) patients. Thirty-nine (53%) of the 74 patients underwent a 2- or 3-field lymphadenectomy in conjunction with primary curative esophagectomy. In these patients, tumoral involvement was found in 21 local and 35 regional or distant lymph nodes (LN). For local LN, the sensitivity of FDG-PET was lower than EUS (33% v 81%, respectively; P = .027), but the specificity may have been higher (89% v 67%, respectively; P = not significant [NS]). For the assessment of regional and distant LN involvement, compared with the combined use of CT and EUS, FDG-PET had a higher specificity (90% v 98%, respectively; P = .025) and a similar sensitivity (46% v 43%, respectively; P = NS). CONCLUSION: PET significantly improves the detection of stage IV disease in EC compared with the conventional staging modalities. PET improves diagnostic specificity for LN staging.

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.2000.18.18.3202

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 571

Metadata

Authors
Flamen, P., Lerut, A., Van Cutsem, E., De Wever, W., Peeters, M., Stroobants, S., Dupont, P., Bormans, G., Hiele, M., De Leyn, P., Van Raemdonck, D., Coosemans, W., Ectors, N., Haustermans, K., & Mortelmans, L.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2000-09-18
Volume
18
Issue
18
Pages
3202-3210
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2267741149
Cited by
571
References
2
FWCI
23.56
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: Utility of Positron Emission Tomography for the Staging of Patients With Potentially Operable Esophageal Carcinoma. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2000.18.18.3202
The paper
Flamen, P., Lerut, A., Van Cutsem, E., De Wever, W., Peeters, M., Stroobants, S., Dupont, P., Bormans, G., Hiele, M., De Leyn, P., Van Raemdonck, D., Coosemans, W., Ectors, N., Haustermans, K., & Mortelmans, L. (2000). Utility of Positron Emission Tomography for the Staging of Patients With Potentially Operable Esophageal Carcinoma. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2000.18.18.3202

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.