Cited by 351Medical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsBreast Lesions and CarcinomasCancer Diagnosis and Treatment

FDG PET Evaluation of Mucinous Neoplasms: Correlation of FDG Uptake with Histopathologic Features

Berger, Kevin L., Nicholson, Siobhan A., Dehdashti, Farrokh, Siegel, Barry A.·2000·American Journal of Roentgenology

Abstract

Objective Our goal was to assess the sensitivity of positron emission tomography (PET) with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) for the detection of mucinous carcinoma and to determine the histologic features of these tumors that may affect lesion detectability. Materials and methods A retrospective review of all patients with mucinous carcinoma who had undergone FDG PET at our institution from 1995 through 1998 identified 25 patients with new or recurrent mucinous carcinoma at the time of PET. In 22 of these patients, tissue specimens available from either core biopsy or surgical resection allowed detailed histologic analysis. Results FDG PET revealed mucinous carcinoma in only 13 (59%) of 22 patients, resulting in an unusually high percentage (41%) of false-negative results. Two histologic features were found to be predictive of FDG PET results: tumor cellularity (p = 0.011) and the amount of mucin within the tumor mass (p = 0.009). There was a positive correlation between tumor FDG uptake and cellularity but a negative correlation with the amount of mucin. Conclusion FDG PET is limited in the evaluation of mucinous tumors, particularly in hypocellular lesions with abundant mucin.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2214/ajr.174.4.1741005

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In oncology, [18F]FDG's lack of specificity hampers the differentiation between benign lesions and well-differentiated malignant lesions with low [18F]FDG avidity.

    “or benign lesions and well-differentiated malignant lesions with low [18F]FDG avidity [122,123,124,125].”

    From Influences on PET Quantification and Interpretation (2022) · cites this paper as [122]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Berger, K. L., Nicholson, S. A., Dehdashti, F., & Siegel, B. A.
Affiliations
Washington University in St. Louis (US)
Venue
American Journal of Roentgenology
Published
2000-04
Volume
174
Issue
4
Pages
1005-1008
ISSN
  • 0002-9580 (ISSN-L)
  • 0361-803X
  • 1546-3141
OpenAlex
W1748631556
Cited by
351
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 24
FWCI
6.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Roentgenology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Medical Imaging Techniques and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Breast Lesions and Carcinomas
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Keywords
FDG-PET, mucinous carcinoma, 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose, tumor cellularity, false-negative results
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Adenocarcinoma, Mucinous, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Retrospective Studies, Sensitivity and Specificity, Tomography, Emission-Computed, Radiopharmaceuticals, Fluorodeoxyglucose F18

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