Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 439

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Positron Emission Tomography Is Superior to Computed Tomography Scanning for Response-Assessment After Radical Radiotherapy or Chemoradiotherapy in Patients With Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

Mac Manus, Michael P., Hicks, Rodney J., Matthews, Jane P., McKenzie, Allan, Rischin, Danny, Salminen, Eeva K., Ball, David L.·2003·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: To prospectively study the capacity of positron emission tomography (PET) and computed tomography (CT) to determine response soon after radical radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy and, thereby, predict survival. PET is known to provide a more accurate estimate of true extent of disease than CT when used to stage non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients and Methods: Seventy-three patients with NSCLC underwent [18 F]fluorodeoxyglucose PET and CT scans before and after radical radiotherapy (n = 10) or chemoradiotherapy (n = 63). Follow-up PET scans were performed at a median of 70 days after radiotherapy. The median PET-CT interval was 1 day. Each patient had determinations of response to therapy made with PET and CT, categorized as complete response, partial response, no response, progressive disease, or nonassessable. Responses were correlated with subsequent survival. Results: Median survival after follow-up PET was 24 months. There was poor agreement between PET and CT responses (weighted kappa = 0.35), which were identical in only 40% of patients. There were significantly more complete responders on PET (n = 34) than CT (n = 10), whereas fewer patients were judged to be nonresponders (12 patients on PET v 20 on CT) or nonassessable (zero patients on PET v six on CT) by PET. Both CT and PET responses were individually significantly associated with survival duration; but on multifactor analysis that included the known prognostic factors of CT response, performance status, weight loss, and stage, only PET response was significantly associated with survival duration (P < .0001). Conclusion: In NSCLC, a single, early, posttreatment PET scan is a better predictor of survival than CT response, stage, or pretreatment performance status.

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.2003.07.054

Cites

1 of 1 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 1 references

Cited by

See all 439

Metadata

Authors
Mac Manus, M. P., Hicks, R. J., Matthews, J. P., McKenzie, A., Rischin, D., Salminen, E. K., & Ball, D. L.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2003-04-01
Volume
21
Issue
7
Pages
1285-1292
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2042586311
Cited by
439
References
1
FWCI
23.22
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: Positron Emission Tomography Is Superior to Computed Tomography Scanning for Response-Assessment After Radical Radiotherapy or Chemoradiotherapy in Patients With Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2003.07.054
The paper
Mac Manus, M. P., Hicks, R. J., Matthews, J. P., McKenzie, A., Rischin, D., Salminen, E. K., & Ball, D. L. (2003). Positron Emission Tomography Is Superior to Computed Tomography Scanning for Response-Assessment After Radical Radiotherapy or Chemoradiotherapy in Patients With Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2003.07.054

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.