Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 557

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Breast Imaging With Positron Emission Tomography and Fluorine-18 Fluorodeoxyglucose: Use and Limitations

Avril, N., Rosé, C.A., Schelling, M., Dose, J., Kuhn, W., Bense, S., Weber, W., Ziegler, S., Graeff, H., Schwaiger, M.·2000·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic value of positron emission tomography (PET) using fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) for the diagnosis of primary breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Preoperatively, 144 patients with masses suggestive of breast cancer underwent PET imaging of the breast. To identify breast cancer by increased metabolic activity, parametric FDG-PET images were analyzed for increased tracer uptake applying conventional image reading (CIR) and sensitive image reading (SIR). One hundred eighty-five breast tumors were evaluated by histology, revealing 132 breast carcinomas and 53 benign masses. RESULTS: Breast carcinomas were identified with an overall sensitivity of 64.4% (CIR) and 80.3% (SIR). The increase in sensitivity (SIR) resulted in a noticeable decrease in specificity, from 94.3% (CIR) to 75.5% (SIR). At stage pT1, only 30 (68.2%) of 44 breast carcinomas were detected, compared with 57 (91.9%) of 62 at stage pT2. A higher percentage of invasive lobular carcinomas were false-negative (65.2%) compared with invasive ductal carcinomas (23.7%). Nevertheless, positive PET scans provided a high positive-predictive value (96.6%) for breast cancer. CONCLUSION: Partial volume effects and varying metabolic activity (dependent on tumor type) seem to represent the most significant limitations for the routine diagnostic application of PET. The number of invasive procedures is therefore unlikely to be significantly reduced by PET imaging in patients presenting with abnormal mammography. However, the high positive-predictive value, resulting from the increased metabolic activity of malignant tissue, may be used with carefully selected subsets of patients as well as to determine the extent of disease or to assess therapy response.

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.2000.18.20.3495

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.

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

Cited by

See all 557

Metadata

Authors
Avril, N., Rosé, C. A., Schelling, M., Dose, J., Kuhn, W., Bense, S., Weber, W., Ziegler, S., Graeff, H., & Schwaiger, M.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2000-10-20
Volume
18
Issue
20
Pages
3495-3502
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W1946385338
Cited by
557
References
0
FWCI
12.53
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: Breast Imaging With Positron Emission Tomography and Fluorine-18 Fluorodeoxyglucose: Use and Limitations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2000.18.20.3495
The paper
Avril, N., Rosé, C. A., Schelling, M., Dose, J., Kuhn, W., Bense, S., Weber, W., Ziegler, S., Graeff, H., & Schwaiger, M. (2000). Breast Imaging With Positron Emission Tomography and Fluorine-18 Fluorodeoxyglucose: Use and Limitations. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2000.18.20.3495

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.