The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Prospective Multicenter Study of Axillary Nodal Staging by Positron Emission Tomography in Breast Cancer: A Report of the Staging Breast Cancer With PET Study Group
Abstract
Purpose: To determine the accuracy of positron emission tomography with fluorine-18–labeled 2-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose (FDG-PET) in detecting axillary nodal metastases in women with primary breast cancer. Patients and Methods: In this prospective multicenter study, 360 women with newly diagnosed invasive breast cancer underwent FDG-PET. Images were blindly interpreted by three experienced readers for abnormally increased axillary FDG uptake. Imaging results from 308 assessable axillae were compared with axillary node pathology. Results: For detecting axillary nodal metastasis, the mean estimated area under the receiver operator curve for the three readers was 0.74 (range, 0.70 to 0.76). If at least one probably or definitely abnormal axillary focus was considered positive, the mean (and range) sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for PET were 61% (54% to 67%), 80% (79% to 81%), 62% (60% to 64%), and 79% (76% to 81%), respectively. False-negative axillae on PET had significantly smaller and fewer tumor-positive lymph nodes (2.7) than true-positive axillae (5.1; P < .005). Semiquantitative analysis of axillary FDG uptake showed that a nodal standardized uptake value (lean body mass) more than 1.8 had a positive predictive value of 90%, but a sensitivity of only 32%. Finding two or more intense foci of tracer uptake in the axilla was highly predictive of axillary metastasis (78% to 83% positive predictive value), albeit insensitive (27%). Conclusion: FDG-PET has moderate accuracy for detecting axillary metastasis but often fails to detect axillae with small and few nodal metastases. Although highly predictive for nodal tumor involvement when multiple intense foci of tracer uptake are identified, FDG-PET is not routinely recommended for axillary staging of patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer.
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
From RECIST to PERCIST: Evolving Considerations for PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors
Wahl, R. L., Jacene, H., Kasamon, Y., & Lodge, M. A. (2009) · Journal of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.2967/jnumed.108.057307 · Cited by 3,777
“76 (area under the curve) (95) in over 300 patients evaluated independently by each reader.”
BackgroundSelf-citationBreast cancer diagnosis: Imaging techniques and biochemical markers
Jafari, S. H., Saadatpour, Z., Salmaninejad, A., Momeni, F., Mokhtari, M., Nahand, J. S., Rahmati, M., Mirzaei, H., & Kianmehr, M. (2018) · Journal of Cellular Physiology · doi:10.1002/jcp.26379 · Cited by 410
Blodgett, T. M., Meltzer, C. C., & Townsend, D. W. (2007) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2422051113 · Cited by 387
FDG PET, PET/CT, and Breast Cancer Imaging
Rosen, E. L., Eubank, W. B., & Mankoff, D. A. (2007) · RadioGraphics · doi:10.1148/rg.27si075517 · Cited by 265
Role of Optimal Quantification of FDG PET Imaging in the Clinical Practice of Radiology
Ziai, P., Hayeri, M. R., Salei, A., Salavati, A., Houshmand, S., Alavi, A., & Teytelboym, O. M. (2016) · RadioGraphics · doi:10.1148/rg.2016150102 · Cited by 106
Metadata
- Authors
- Wahl, R. L., Siegel, B. A., Coleman, R. E., & Gatsonis, C. G.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Oncology
- Published
- 2004-01-15
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 277-285
- ISSN
- 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
- 1527-7755
- OpenAlex
- W2031950319
- Cited by
- 345
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 24.59
- 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: Prospective Multicenter Study of Axillary Nodal Staging by Positron Emission Tomography in Breast Cancer: A Report of the Staging Breast Cancer With PET Study Group. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2004.04.148
- The paper
- Wahl, R. L., Siegel, B. A., Coleman, R. E., & Gatsonis, C. G. (2004). Prospective Multicenter Study of Axillary Nodal Staging by Positron Emission Tomography in Breast Cancer: A Report of the Staging Breast Cancer With PET Study Group. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2004.04.148
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.