The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Accuracy of Whole-Body Dual-Modality Fluorine-18–2-Fluoro-2-Deoxy-d-Glucose Positron Emission Tomography and Computed Tomography (FDG-PET/CT) for Tumor Staging in Solid Tumors: Comparison With CT and PET
Abstract
Purpose: To assess the accuracy of positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) when staging different malignant diseases. Patients and Methods: This was a retrospective, blinded, investigator-initiated study of 260 patients with various oncological diseases who underwent fluorine-18–2-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose PET/CT for tumor staging. CT images alone, PET images alone, PET + CT data viewed side by side, and fused PET/CT images were evaluated separately according to the tumor-node-metastasis system. One hundred forty patients with tumors not staged according to the tumor-node-metastasis system or a lack of reference standard were excluded from data analysis; 260 patients were included. Diagnostic accuracies were determined for each of the four image sets. Histopathology and a clinical follow-up of 311 (± 125) days served as standards of reference. Results: PET/CT proved significantly more accurate in assessing tumor-node-metastasis system stage compared with CT alone, PET alone, and side-by-side PET + CT (P < .0001). Of 260 patients, 218 (84%; 95% CI, 79% to 88%) were correctly staged with PET/CT, 197 (76%; 95% CI, 70% to 81%) with side-by-side PET + CT, 163 (63%; 95% CI, 57% to 69%) with CT alone, and 166 (64%; 95% CI, 58% to 70%) with PET alone. Combined PET/CT had an impact on the treatment plan in 16, 39, and 43 patients when compared with PET + CT, CT alone, and PET alone, respectively. Conclusion: Tumor staging with PET/CT is significantly more accurate than CT alone, PET alone, and side-by-side PET + CT. This diagnostic advantage translates into treatment plan changes in a substantial number of patients.
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
Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARD Initiative.
Bossuyt, P. M., Reitsma, J. B., Bruns, D. E., Gatsonis, C. A., Glasziou, P. P., Irwig, L. M., Lijmer, J. G., Moher, D., Rennie, D., de Vet, H. C. W., et al. (2003) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-138-1-200301070-00010 · Cited by 3,219
Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative
Bossuyt, P. M., Reitsma, J. B., Bruns, D. E., Gatsonis, C. A., Glasziou, P. P., Irwig, L. M., Lijmer, J. G., Moher, D., Rennie, D., & de Vet, H. C. W. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7379.41 · Cited by 3,215
Towards Complete and Accurate Reporting of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy: The STARD Initiative
Bossuyt, P. M., Reitsma, J. B., Bruns, D. E., Gatsonis, C. A., Glasziou, P. P., Irwig, L. M., Lijmer, J. G., Moher, D., Rennie, D., & de Vet, H. C. W. (2003) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2261021292 · Cited by 3,215
Lardinois, D., Weder, W., Hany, T. F., Kamel, E. M., Korom, S., Seifert, B., von Schulthess, G. K., & Steinert, H. C. (2003) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa022136 · Cited by 1,416
Forastiere, A., Koch, W., Trotti, A., & Sidransky, D. (2001) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmra001375 · Cited by 1,250
Preoperative Staging of Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer with Positron-Emission Tomography
Pieterman, R. M., van Putten, J. W. G., Meuzelaar, J. J., Mooyaart, E. L., Vaalburg, W., Koëter, G. H., Fidler, V., Pruim, J., & Groen, H. J. M. (2000) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm200007273430404 · Cited by 1,111
Attenuation correction for a combined 3D PET/CT scanner
Kinahan, P. E., Townsend, D. W., Beyer, T., & Sashin, D. (1998) · Medical Physics · doi:10.1118/1.598392 · Cited by 946
Self-citation(2001) · PubMed · Cited by 943
van Tinteren, H., Hoekstra, O. S., Smit, E. F., van den Bergh, J. H., Schreurs, A. J., Stallaert, R. A., van Velthoven, P. C., Comans, E. F., Diepenhorst, F. W., Verboom, P., et al. (2002) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(02)08352-6 · Cited by 851
Noninvasive Staging of Non-small Cell Lung Cancer*
Toloza, E. M., Harpole, L., & McCrory, D. C. (2003) · Chest · doi:10.1378/chest.123.1_suppl.137s · Cited by 745
Metadata
- Authors
- Antoch, G., Saoudi, N., Kuehl, H., Dahmen, G., Mueller, S. P., Beyer, T., Bockisch, A., Debatin, J. F., & Freudenberg, L. S.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Oncology
- Published
- 2004-11-01
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 21
- Pages
- 4357-4368
- ISSN
- 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
- 1527-7755
- OpenAlex
- W2119226000
- Cited by
- 435
- References
- 32
- FWCI
- 24.06
- 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: Accuracy of Whole-Body Dual-Modality Fluorine-18–2-Fluoro-2-Deoxy-d-Glucose Positron Emission Tomography and Computed Tomography (FDG-PET/CT) for Tumor Staging in Solid Tumors: Comparison With CT and PET. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2004.08.120
- The paper
- Antoch, G., Saoudi, N., Kuehl, H., Dahmen, G., Mueller, S. P., Beyer, T., Bockisch, A., Debatin, J. F., & Freudenberg, L. S. (2004). Accuracy of Whole-Body Dual-Modality Fluorine-18–2-Fluoro-2-Deoxy-d-Glucose Positron Emission Tomography and Computed Tomography (FDG-PET/CT) for Tumor Staging in Solid Tumors: Comparison With CT and PET. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2004.08.120
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.