Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 399

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

Positron Emission Tomography for Staging of Pediatric Sarcoma Patients: Results of a Prospective Multicenter Trial

Völker, Thomas, Denecke, Timm, Steffen, Ingo, Misch, Daniel, Schönberger, Stefan, Plotkin, Michail, Ruf, Juri, Furth, Christian, Stöver, Brigitte, Hautzel, Hubertus, Henze, Günter, Amthauer, Holger·2007·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of positron emission tomography (PET) using fluorine-18–fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) for initial staging and therapy planning in pediatric sarcoma patients. Patients and Methods: In this prospective multicenter study, 46 pediatric patients (females, n = 22; males, n = 24; age range, 1 to 18 years) with histologically proven sarcoma (Ewing sarcoma family tumors, n = 23; osteosarcoma, n = 11; rhabdomyosarcoma, n = 12) were examined with conventional imaging modalities (CIMs), including ultrasound, computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging, and bone scintigraphy according to the standardized algorithms of the international therapy optimization trials, and whole-body FDG-PET. A lesion- and patient-based analysis of PET alone and CIMs alone and a side-by-side (SBS) analysis of FDG-PET and CIMs were performed. The standard of reference consisted of all imaging material, follow-up data (mean follow-up time, 24 ± 12 months), and histopathology and was determined by an interdisciplinary tumor board. Results: FDG-PET and CIMs were equally effective in the detection of primary tumors (accuracy, 100%). PET was superior to CIMs concerning the correct detection of lymph node involvement (sensitivity, 95% v 25%, respectively) and bone manifestations (sensitivity, 90% v 57%, respectively), whereas CT was more reliable than FDG-PET in depicting lung metastases (sensitivity, 100% v 25%, respectively). The patient-based analysis revealed the best results for SBS, with 91% correct therapy decisions. This was significantly superior to CIMs (59%; P < .001). Conclusion: In staging pediatric sarcoma, subsidiary FDG-PET scanning depicts important additional information and has a relevant impact on therapy planning when analyzed side-by-side with CIMs.

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.2007.12.2473

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 399

Metadata

Authors
Völker, T., Denecke, T., Steffen, I., Misch, D., Schönberger, S., Plotkin, M., Ruf, J., Furth, C., Stöver, B., Hautzel, H., Henze, G., & Amthauer, H.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2007-12-01
Volume
25
Issue
34
Pages
5435-5441
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2129430773
Cited by
399
References
1
FWCI
21.35
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 for Staging of Pediatric Sarcoma Patients: Results of a Prospective Multicenter Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2007.12.2473
The paper
Völker, T., Denecke, T., Steffen, I., Misch, D., Schönberger, S., Plotkin, M., Ruf, J., Furth, C., Stöver, B., Hautzel, H., Henze, G., & Amthauer, H. (2007). Positron Emission Tomography for Staging of Pediatric Sarcoma Patients: Results of a Prospective Multicenter Trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2007.12.2473

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.