Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 435

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

Antoch, Gerald, Saoudi, Nina, Kuehl, Hilmar, Dahmen, Gerlinde, Mueller, Stefan P., Beyer, Thomas, Bockisch, Andreas, Debatin, Jörg F., Freudenberg, Lutz S.·2004·Journal of Clinical Oncology

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1200/jco.2004.08.120

Cites

32 of 32 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 32 references

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.