The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Lymph Node Staging by Positron Emission Tomography in Patients With Carcinoma of the Cervix
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the results of computed tomography (CT) and positron emission tomography (PET) with [18 F]-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose (FDG) for lymph node staging in patients with carcinoma of the cervix and to evaluate the relationship of the imaging findings to prognosis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively compared the results of CT lymph node staging and whole-body FDG-PET in 101 consecutive patients with carcinoma of the cervix. Patients were treated with standard irradiation and chemotherapy (as clinically indicated) and observed at 3-month intervals for a median of 15.4 months (range, 2.5 to 30 months). Progression-free survival was evaluated by the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: CT demonstrated abnormally enlarged pelvic lymph nodes in 20 (20%) and para-aortic lymph nodes in seven (7%) of the 101 patients. PET demonstrated abnormal FDG uptake in pelvic lymph nodes in 67 (67%), in para-aortic lymph nodes in 21 (21%), and in supraclavicular lymph node in eight (8%). The 2-year progression-free survival, based solely on para-aortic lymph node status, was 64% in CT-negative and PET-negative patients, 18% in CT-negative and PET-positive patients, and 14% in CT-positive and PET-positive patients (P < .0001). A multivariate analysis demonstrated that the most significant prognostic factor for progression-free survival was the presence of positive para-aortic lymph nodes as detected by PET imaging (P = .025). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that FDG-PET detects abnormal lymph node regions more often than does CT and that the findings on PET are a better predictor of survival than those of CT in patients with carcinoma of the cervix.
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
Cites
Nonparametric Estimation from Incomplete Observations
Kaplan, E. L., & Meier, P. (1958) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1958.10501452 · Cited by 39,158
Cited by
Bermudez, A., Bhatla, N., & Leung, E. (2015) · International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics · doi:10.1016/j.ijgo.2015.06.004 · Cited by 657
Choi, H. J., Ju, W., Myung, S. K., & Kim, Y. (2010) · Cancer Science · doi:10.1111/j.1349-7006.2010.01532.x · Cited by 317
Kidd, E. A., Siegel, B. A., Dehdashti, F., & Grigsby, P. W. (2007) · Cancer · doi:10.1002/cncr.22974 · Cited by 288
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Grigsby, P. W., Siegel, B. A., & Dehdashti, F.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Oncology
- Published
- 2001-09-01
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 17
- Pages
- 3745-3749
- ISSN
- 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
- 1527-7755
- OpenAlex
- W1755258021
- Cited by
- 471
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 32.39
- 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: Lymph Node Staging by Positron Emission Tomography in Patients With Carcinoma of the Cervix. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2001.19.17.3745
- The paper
- Grigsby, P. W., Siegel, B. A., & Dehdashti, F. (2001). Lymph Node Staging by Positron Emission Tomography in Patients With Carcinoma of the Cervix. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2001.19.17.3745
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.