The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Impact of Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography and Positron Emission Tomography (PET) Alone on Expected Management of Patients With Cancer: Initial Results From the National Oncologic PET Registry
Abstract
Purpose: Under Medicare's Coverage with Evidence Development policy, positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) and PET became covered services for previously noncovered cancer indications if prospective registry data were collected. The National Oncologic PET Registry (NOPR) was developed to meet these coverage requirements and to assess how PET affects care decisions. Methods: The NOPR collected questionnaire data from referring physicians on intended patient management before and after PET. After 1 year, the cohort included data from 22,975 studies (83.7% PET/CT) from 1,178 centers. The numbers of scans performed for diagnosis of suspected cancer (or unknown primary cancer), initial cancer staging, restaging, and suspected cancer recurrence were approximately equal. Prostatic, pancreatic and ovarian cancers represented approximately 30% of cases. Results: If PET data were not available, the most common pre-PET plan would have been other imaging. In these patients, the post-PET strategies changed to watching in 37% and treatment in 48%. In patients with planned biopsy before PET, biopsy was avoided in approximately 70%. If the pre-PET strategy was treatment, the post-PET strategy involved a major change in type in 8.7% and goal in 5.6%. When intended management was classified as either treatment or nontreatment, the post-PET plan was three-fold more likely to lead to treatment than nontreatment (28.3% v 8.2%; odds ratio = 3.4; 95% CI, 3.2 to 3.6). Overall, physicians changed their intended management in 36.5% (95% CI, 35.9 to 37.2) of cases after PET. Conclusion: This large, prospective, nationally representative registry of elderly cancer patients found that physicians often change their intended management on the basis of PET scan results across the full spectrum of its potential uses.
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
Colorectal cancer statistics, 2020
Siegel, R. L., Miller, K. D., Goding Sauer, A., Fedewa, S. A., Butterly, L. F., Anderson, J. C., Cercek, A., Smith, R. A., & Jemal, A. (2020) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.21601 · Cited by 4,880
Dimopoulos, M., Terpos, E., Comenzo, R. L., Tosi, P., Beksac, M., Sezer, O., Siegel, D., Lokhorst, H., Kumar, S., Rajkumar, S. V., et al. (2009) · Leukemia · doi:10.1038/leu.2009.89 · Cited by 482
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
PET/CT mediastinal and liver FDG uptake: Effects of biological and procedural factors
Malladi, A., Viner, M., Jackson, T., Mercier, G., & Subramaniam, R. M. (2013) · Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology · doi:10.1111/1754-9485.12015 · Cited by 35
Metadata
- Authors
- Hillner, B. E., Siegel, B. A., Liu, D., Shields, A. F., Gareen, I. F., Hanna, L., Stine, S. H., & Coleman, R. E.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Oncology
- Published
- 2008-05-01
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 13
- Pages
- 2155-2161
- ISSN
- 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
- 1527-7755
- OpenAlex
- W2110081171
- Cited by
- 374
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 26.28
- 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: Impact of Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography and Positron Emission Tomography (PET) Alone on Expected Management of Patients With Cancer: Initial Results From the National Oncologic PET Registry. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2007.14.5631
- The paper
- Hillner, B. E., Siegel, B. A., Liu, D., Shields, A. F., Gareen, I. F., Hanna, L., Stine, S. H., & Coleman, R. E. (2008). Impact of Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography and Positron Emission Tomography (PET) Alone on Expected Management of Patients With Cancer: Initial Results From the National Oncologic PET Registry. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2007.14.5631
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.