Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,520

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

Correlation of Computed Tomography and Positron Emission Tomography in Patients With Metastatic Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor Treated at a Single Institution With Imatinib Mesylate: Proposal of New Computed Tomography Response Criteria

Open access
Choi, Haesun, Charnsangavej, Chuslip, Faria, Silvana C., Macapinlac, Homer A., Burgess, Michael A., Patel, Shreyaskumar R., Chen, Lei L., Podoloff, Donald A., Benjamin, Robert S.·2007·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) are insensitive in evaluating gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) treated with imatinib. This study evaluates whether computed tomography (CT) findings of GIST after imatinib treatment correlate with tumor responses by [18 F]fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) and develops reliable, quantitative, CT response criteria. Patients and Methods: A total of 172 lesions selected by RECIST were evaluated in 40 patients with metastatic GISTs treated with imatinib. All patients had pretreatment and 2-month follow-up CTs and FDG-PETs. Multivariate analysis was performed using tumor size and density (Hounsfield unit [HU]) on CT and maximum standardized uptake value (SUV max) on FDG-PET. Patients were observed up to 28 months. Results: Mean baseline tumor size and density on CT were 5.3 cm and 72.8 HU, respectively, and mean baseline SUV max on FDG-PET was 5.8. Thirty-three patients had good response on FDG-PET. A decrease in tumor size of more than 10% or a decrease in tumor density of more than 15% on CT had a sensitivity of 97% and a specificity of 100% in identifying PET responders versus 52% and 100% by RECIST. Good responders on CT at 2 months had significantly longer time to progression than those who did not respond (P = .01). Conclusion: Small changes in tumor size or density on CT are sensitive and specific methods of assessing the response of GISTs. If the prognostic value of our proposed CT response criteria can be confirmed prospectively, the criteria should be employed in future studies of patients with GIST.

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.2006.07.3049

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 1,520

Metadata

Authors
Choi, H., Charnsangavej, C., Faria, S. C., Macapinlac, H. A., Burgess, M. A., Patel, S. R., Chen, L. L., Podoloff, D. A., & Benjamin, R. S.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2007-05-01
Volume
25
Issue
13
Pages
1753-1759
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2123534406
Cited by
1,520
References
1
FWCI
61.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Correlation of Computed Tomography and Positron Emission Tomography in Patients With Metastatic Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor Treated at a Single Institution With Imatinib Mesylate: Proposal of New Computed Tomography Response Criteria. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2006.07.3049
The paper
Choi, H., Charnsangavej, C., Faria, S. C., Macapinlac, H. A., Burgess, M. A., Patel, S. R., Chen, L. L., Podoloff, D. A., & Benjamin, R. S. (2007). Correlation of Computed Tomography and Positron Emission Tomography in Patients With Metastatic Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor Treated at a Single Institution With Imatinib Mesylate: Proposal of New Computed Tomography Response Criteria. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2006.07.3049

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.