From RECIST to PERCIST: Evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors

Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Volumn 50, Issue SUPPL. 1, 2009, Pages

  Wahl, Richard L ^a   Jacene, Heather ^a   Kasamon, Yvette ^a   Lodge, Martin A ^a  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Anatomic imaging; Molecular imaging; Oncology; PET CT; RECIST; Response criteria; SUV; Treatment monitoring

Indexed keywords

FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18;

CANCER SCINTISCANNING; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; DRUG UPTAKE; HUMAN; MOLECULAR IMAGING; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT MONITORING; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITATIVE DIAGNOSIS; QUANTITATIVE DIAGNOSIS; RADIOISOTOPE DISTRIBUTION; REVIEW; SOLID TUMOR; TREATMENT RESPONSE;

FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F18; FORECASTING; HUMANS; INTERNATIONALITY; NEOPLASMS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; PROGNOSIS; RADIOPHARMACEUTICALS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION;

EID: 66149139452     PISSN: 01615505     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.108.057307     Document Type: Review

References (149)

1. Karrison TG, Maitland ML, Stadler WM, Ratain MJ. Design of phase II cancer trials using a continuous endpoint of change in tumor size: application to a study of sorafenib and erlotinib in non small-cell lung cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99:1455-1461.
2. Ratain MJ, Eckhardt SG. Phase II studies of modern drugs directed against new targets: if you are fazed, too, then resist RECIST. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:4442-4445.
3. Rosner GL, Stadler W, Ratain MJ. Randomized discontinuation design: application to cytostatic antineoplastic agents. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:4478-4484.
4. Ratain MJ, Sargent DJ. Optimising the design of phase II oncology trials: the importance of randomisation. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:275-280.
5. Schuetze SM, Baker LH, Benjamin RS, Canetta R. Selection of response criteria for clinical trials of sarcoma treatment. Oncologist. 2008;13(suppl 2):32-40.
6. Moertel CG, Hanley JA. The effect of measuring error on the results of therapeutic trials in advanced cancer. Cancer. 1976;38:388-394.
7. Miller AB, Hoogstraten B, Staquet M, Winkler A. Reporting results of cancer treatment. Cancer. 1981;47:207-214.
8. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92:205-216.
9. Lavin PT. An alternative model for the evaluation of antitumor activity. Cancer Clin Trials. 1981;4:451-457.
10. Michaelis LC, Ratain MJ. Measuring response in a post-RECIST world: from black and white to shades of grey. Nat Rev Cancer. May 2006;6:409-414.
11. Kaplan WD, Jochelson MS, Herman TS, et al. Gallium-67 imaging: a predictor of residual tumor viability and clinical outcome in patients with diffuse largecell lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 1990;8:1966-1970.
12. 67Ga scintigraphy. Radiology. 2000;214:253-257.
13. 67Ga scintigraphy after one cycle of chemotherapy. Radiology. 1999;210:487-491.
14. Israel O, Front D, Lam M, et al. Gallium 67 imaging in monitoring lymphoma response to treatment. Cancer. 1988;61:2439-2443. (Pubitemid 18152611)
15. Israel O, Mor M, Epelbaum R, et al. Clinical pretreatment risk factors and Ga-67 scintigraphy early during treatment for prediction of outcome of patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Cancer. 2002;94:873-878. (Pubitemid 34150839)
16. Di Chiro G, Brooks RA. PET-FDG of untreated and treated cerebral gliomas. J Nucl Med. 1988;29:421-423.
17. Di Chiro G, Oldfield E, Wright DC, et al. Cerebral necrosis after radiotherapy and/or intraarterial chemotherapy for brain tumors: PET and neuropathologic studies. AJR. 1988;150:189-197.
18. 18F]fluorodeoxyglucose scintigraphy in diagnosis and follow up of treatment in advanced breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med. 1989;15: 61-66.
19. Hoekstra OS, van Lingen A, Ossenkoppele GJ, Golding R, Teule GJ. Early response monitoring in malignant lymphoma using fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose single-photon emission tomography. Eur J Nucl Med. 1993;20:1214-1217.
20. Wahl RL, Zasadny K, Helvie M, Hutchins GD, Weber B, Cody R. Metabolic monitoring of breast cancer chemohormonotherapy using positron emission tomography: initial evaluation. J Clin Oncol. 1993;11:2101-2111. (Pubitemid 23332245)
21. Juweid ME, Cheson BD. Positron-emission tomography and assessment of cancer therapy. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:496-507.
22. Weber WA, Wieder H. Monitoring chemotherapy and radiotherapy of solid tumors. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2006;33(suppl 1):27-37.
23. Kidd EA, Siegel BA, Dehdashti F, Grigsby PW. The standardized uptake value for F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose is a sensitive predictive biomarker for cervical cancer treatment response and survival. Cancer. 2007;110:1738-1744.
24. Weber WA. Positron emission tomography as an imaging biomarker. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:3282-3292.
25. Larson SM, Schwartz LH. 18F-FDG PET as a candidate for "qualified biomarker": functional assessment of treatment response in oncology. J Nucl Med. 2006;47:901-903.
26. Kasamon YL, Wahl RL. FDG PET and risk-adapted therapy in Hodgkin's and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Curr Opin Oncol. 2008;20:206-219.
27. Kasamon YL, Jones RJ, Wahl RL. Integrating PET and PET/CT into the risk-adapted therapy of lymphoma. J Nucl Med. 2007;48(suppl 1):19S-27S.
28. Kasamon YL, Wahl RL, Swinnen LJ. FDG PET and high-dose therapy for aggressive lymphomas: toward a risk-adapted strategy. Curr Opin Oncol. 2004;16:100-105.
29. Hutchings M, Loft A, Hansen M, et al. FDG-PET after two cycles of chemotherapy predicts treatment failure and progression-free survival in Hodgkin lymphoma. Blood. 2006;107:52-59. (Pubitemid 43053523)
30. 18F-FDG PET as an indicator of therapeutic response in patients in National Cancer Institute Trials. J Nucl Med. 2006;47:1059-1066.
31. Boellaard R, Oyen WJ, Hoekstra CJ, et al. The Netherlands protocol for standardisation and quantification of FDG whole body PET studies in multicentre trials. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;35:2320-2333.
32. Juweid ME, Stroobants S, Hoekstra OS, et al. Use of positron emission tomography for response assessment of lymphoma: consensus of the Imaging Subcommittee of International Harmonization Project in Lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:571-578.
33. Cheson BD, Pfistner B, Juweid ME, et al. Revised response criteria for malignant lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:579-586. (Pubitemid 350002966)
34. Mijnhout GS, Riphagen II, Hoekstra OS. Update of the FDG PET search strategy. Nucl Med Commun. 2004;25:1187-1189.
35. Mijnhout GS, Hooft L, van Tulder MW, Deville WL, Teule GJ, Hoekstra OS. How to perform a comprehensive search for FDG-PET literature. Eur J Nucl Med. 2000;27:91-97.
36. 18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography: review and 1999 EORTC recommendations. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) PET Study Group. Eur J Cancer. 1999;35:1773-1782.
37. Therasse P, Eisenhauer EA, Verweij J. RECIST revisited: a review of validation studies on tumour assessment. Eur J Cancer. 2006;42:1031-1039.
38. Verweij J, Therasse P, Eisenhauer E. Cancer clinical trial outcomes: any progress in tumour-size assessment? Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:225-227.
39. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:228-247.
40. Bogaerts J, Ford R, Sargent D, et al. Individual patient data analysis to assess modifications to the RECIST criteria. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:248-260.
41. Schwartz LH, Bogaerts J, Ford R, et al. Evaluation of lymph nodes with RECIST 1.1. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:261-267.
42. Benjamin RS, Choi H, Macapinlac HA, et al. We should desist using RECIST, at least in GIST. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:1760-1764.
43. Van den Abbeele AD. The lessons of GIST: PET and PET/CT - a new paradigm for imaging. Oncologist. 2008;13(suppl 2):8-13.
44. Forner A, Ayuso C, Varela M, et al. Evaluation of tumor response after locoregional therapies in hepatocellular carcinoma: are response evaluation criteria in solid tumors reliable? Cancer. 2009;115:616-623.
45. Llovet JM, Ricci S, Mazzaferro V, et al. Sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:378-390.
46. Choi H, Charnsangavej C, Faria SC, et al. 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. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:1753-1759.
47. Choi H, Charnsangavej C, de Castro Faria S, et al. CT evaluation of the response of gastrointestinal stromal tumors after imatinib mesylate treatment: a quantitative analysis correlated with FDG PET findings. AJR. 2004;183:1619-1628.
48. Bensimhon D, Soyer P, Brouland JP, Boudiaf M, Fargeaudou Y, Rymer R. Gastrointestinal stromal tumors: role of computed tomography before and after treatment [in French]. Gastroenterol Clin Biol. 2008;32:91-97.
49. Mabille M, Vanel D, Albiter M, et al. Follow-up of hepatic and peritoneal metastases of gastrointestinal tumors (GIST) under imatinib therapy requires different criteria of radiological evaluation (size is not everything!!!). Eur J Radiol. 2009;69:204-208.
50. Vossen JA, Buijs M, Kamel IR. Assessment of tumor response on MR imaging after locoregional therapy. Tech Vasc Interv Radiol. 2006;9:125-132.
51. Plathow C, Klopp M, Thieke C, et al. Therapy response in malignant pleural mesothelioma: role of MRI using RECIST, modified RECIST and volumetric approaches in comparison with CT. Eur Radiol. 2008;18:1635-1643.
52. Ceresoli GL, Chiti A, Zucali PA, et al. Assessment of tumor response in malignant pleural mesothelioma. Cancer Treat Rev. 2007;33:533-541. (Pubitemid 47355343)
53. van Klaveren RJ, Aerts JG, de Bruin H, Giaccone G, Manegold C, van Meerbeeck JP. Inadequacy of the RECIST criteria for response evaluation in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. Lung Cancer. 2004;43: 63-69.
54. 53A. Barnacle AM, McHugh K. Limitations with the response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) guidance in disseminated pediatric malignancy. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2006;46:127-134.
55. Erasmus JJ, Gladish GW, Broemeling L, et al. Interobserver and intraobserver variability in measurement of non-small-cell carcinoma lung lesions: implications for assessment of tumor response. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:2574-2582.
56. Armitage JO, Weisenburger DD, Hutchins M, et al. Chemotherapy for diffuse large-cell lymphoma: rapidly responding patients have more durable remissions. J Clin Oncol. 1986;4:160-164.
57. Birchard KR, Hoang JK, Herndon JE Jr, Patz EF Jr. Early changes in tumor size in patients treated for advanced stage nonsmall cell lung cancer do not correlate with survival. Cancer. 2009;115:581-586.
58. Melton GB, Lavely WC, Jacene HA, et al. Efficacy of preoperative combined 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and computed tomography for assessing primary rectal cancer response to neoadjuvant therapy. J Gastrointest Surg. 2007;11:961-969.
59. Jochelson M, Mauch P, Balikian J, Rosenthal D, Canellos G. The significance of the residual mediastinal mass in treated Hodgkin's disease. J Clin Oncol. 1985;3:637-640.
60. Cheson BD, Horning SJ, Coiffier B, et al. Report of an international workshop to standardize response criteria for non-Hodgkin's lymphomas. NCI Sponsored International Working Group. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:1244.
61. Reinhardt MJ, Herkel C, Altehoefer C, Finke J, Moser E. Computed tomography and 18F-FDG positron emission tomography for therapy control of Hodgkin's and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma patients: when do we really need FDG-PET? Ann Oncol. 2005;16:1524-1529. (Pubitemid 41222426)
62. Juweid ME, Wiseman GA, Vose JM, et al. Response assessment of aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma by integrated International Workshop Criteria and fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:4652-4661. (Pubitemid 46224067)
63. 18fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in human breast cancer measured by positron emission tomography. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:379-387.
64. Brucher BL, Weber W, Bauer M, et al. Neoadjuvant therapy of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: response evaluation by positron emission tomography. Ann Surg. 2001;233:300-309.
65. Vansteenkiste JF, Stroobants SG, De Leyn PR, Dupont PJ, Verbeken EK. Potential use of FDG-PET scan after induction chemotherapy in surgically staged IIIa-N2 non-small-cell lung cancer: a prospective pilot study. The Leuven Lung Cancer Group. Ann Oncol. 1998;9:1193-1198. (Pubitemid 28552808)
66. Bryant AS, Cerfolio RJ, Klemm KM, Ojha B. Maximum standard uptake value of mediastinal lymph nodes on integrated FDG-PET-CT predicts pathology in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg. 2006;82:417-422.
67. Dooms C, Verbeken E, Stroobants S, Nackaerts K, De Leyn P, Vansteenkiste J. Prognostic stratification of stage IIIA-N2 non-small-cell lung cancer after induction chemotherapy: a model based on the combination of morphometricpathologic response in mediastinal nodes and primary tumor response on serial 18-fluoro-2-deoxy-glucose positron emission tomography. J Clin Oncol. 2008; 26:1128-1134.
68. Humm JL, Rosenfeld A, Del Guerra A. From PET detectors to PET scanners. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003;30:1574-1597.
69. Tatsumi M, Cohade C, Nakamoto Y, Fishman EK, Wahl RL. Direct comparison of FDG PET and CT findings in patients with lymphoma: initial experience. Radiology. 2005;237:1038-1045.
70. Kelloff GJ, Hoffman JM, Johnson B, et al. Progress and promise of FDG-PET imaging for cancer patient management and oncologic drug development. Clin Cancer Res. 2005;11:2785-2808. (Pubitemid 40525178)
71. Weber WA, Figlin R. Monitoring cancer treatment with PET/CT: does it make a difference? J Nucl Med. 2007;48(suppl 1):36S-44S. (Pubitemid 47604941)
72. Weber WA. Use of PET for monitoring cancer therapy and for predicting outcome. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:983-995.
73. Hellwig D, Graeter TP, Ukena D, Georg T, Kirsch CM, Schafers HJ. Value of F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography after induction therapy of locally advanced bronchogenic carcinoma. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2004;128:892-899.
74. Port JL, Kent MS, Korst RJ, Keresztes R, Levin MA, Altorki NK. Positron emission tomography scanning poorly predicts response to preoperative chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg. 2004;77:254-259.
75. Cerfolio RJ, Bryant AS, Winokur TS, Ohja B, Bartolucci AA. Repeat FDG-PET after neoadjuvant therapy is a predictor of pathologic response in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg. 2004;78: 1903-1909.
76. Akhurst T, Downey RJ, Ginsberg MS, et al. An initial experience with FDGPET in the imaging of residual disease after induction therapy for lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg. 2002;73:259-264. (Pubitemid 34084576)
77. Mac Manus MP, Hicks RJ, Matthews JP, Wirth A, Rischin D, Ball DL. Metabolic (FDG-PET) response after radical radiotherapy/chemoradiotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer correlates with patterns of failure. Lung Cancer. 2005;49:95-108.
78. Flamen P, Van Cutsem E, Lerut A, et al. Positron emission tomography for assessment of the response to induction radiochemotherapy in locally advanced oesophageal cancer. Ann Oncol. 2002;13:361-368. (Pubitemid 34704995)
79. Swisher SG, Maish M, Erasmus JJ, et al. Utility of PET, CT, and EUS to identify pathologic responders in esophageal cancer. Ann Thorac Surg. 2004;78:1152-1160.
80. Swisher SG, Erasmus J, Maish M, et al. 2-Fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography imaging is predictive of pathologic response and survival after preoperative chemoradiation in patients with esophageal carcinoma. Cancer. 2004;101:1776-1785. (Pubitemid 39314740)
81. 18F-FDG-PET) in the identification of responders to chemoradiation therapy for the treatment of locally advanced esophageal cancer. Ann Surg. 2006;243:472-478.
82. 18FDG-PET and the response of esophageal cancer to induction therapy: results of a prospective trial. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:428-432.
83. Duong CP, Hicks RJ, Weih L, et al. FDG-PET status following chemoradiotherapy provides high management impact and powerful prognostic stratification in oesophageal cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2006; 33:770-778. (Pubitemid 43979684)
84. Duong CP, Demitriou H, Weih L, et al. Significant clinical impact and prognostic stratification provided by FDG-PET in the staging of oesophageal cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2006;33:759-769. (Pubitemid 43979683)
85. 18F-FDG PET scans after neoadjuvant chemoradiation provides prognostic stratification in patients with locally advanced rectal carcinoma subsequently treated by radical surgery. J Nucl Med. 2006;47:14-22.
86. 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography in oesophageal cancer for prediction of pathologic response and survival after preoperative chemoradiotherapy. Eur J Cancer. 2007;43:1385-1391.
87. 18F-FDG PET for prediction of prognosis in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: SUV-based assessment versus visual analysis. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:1626-1632.
88. 18FDG-positron emission tomography for the early prediction of response in advanced soft tissue sarcoma treated with imatinib mesylate (Glivec). Eur J Cancer. 2003;39:2012-2020.
89. Kaplan WD. Residual mass and negative gallium scintigraphy in treated lymphoma: when is the gallium scan really negative? J Nucl Med. 1990;31: 369-371. (Pubitemid 20090808)
90. Mikhaeel NG, Hutchings M, Fields PA, O'Doherty MJ, Timothy AR. FDG-PET after two to three cycles of chemotherapy predicts progression-free and overall survival in high-grade non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Ann Oncol. 2005; 16:1514-1523.
91. Kasamon YL, Wahl RL, Ziessman HA, et al. Phase II study of risk-adapted therapy of newly diagnosed, aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma based on midtreatment FDG-PET scanning. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2009;15: 242-248.
92. Hicks RJ, Mac Manus MP, Matthews JP, et al. Early FDG-PET imaging after radical radiotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer: inflammatory changes in normal tissues correlate with tumor response and do not confound therapeutic response evaluation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004;60: 412-418.
93. Mac Manus MP, Hicks RJ, Matthews JP, et al. Positron emission tomography is superior to computed tomography scanning for response-assessment after radical radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:1285-1292. (Pubitemid 46606405)
94. 18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in patients with metastatic breast cancer treated with high-dose chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:3026-3031.
95. Hicks RJ. The role of PET in monitoring therapy. Cancer Imaging. 2005;5: 51-57.
96. Wahl RL, Siegel BA, Coleman RE, Gatsonis CG. Prospective multicenter study of axillary nodal staging by positron emission tomography in breast cancer: a report of the staging breast cancer with PET Study Group. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:277-285.
97. Smulders SA, Gundy CM, van Lingen A, Comans EF, Smeenk FW, Hoekstra OS; Study Group of Clinical PET. Observer variation of 2-deoxy-2-[F- 18]fluoro-D-glucose-positron emission tomography in mediastinal staging of non-small cell lung cancer as a function of experience, and its potential clinical impact. Mol Imaging Biol. 2007;9:318-322.
98. van der Putten L, Hoekstra OS, de Bree R, et al. 2-deoxy-2[F-18]FDG-PET for detection of recurrent laryngeal carcinoma after radiotherapy: interobserver variability in reporting. Mol Imaging Biol. 2008;10:294-303.
99. Hutchings M, Mikhaeel NG, Fields PA, Nunan T, Timothy AR. Prognostic value of interim FDG-PET after two or three cycles of chemotherapy in Hodgkin lymphoma. Ann Oncol. 2005;16:1160-1168.
100. Zijlstra JM, Comans EF, van Lingen A, et al. FDG PET in lymphoma: the need for standardization of interpretation - an observer variation study. Nucl Med Commun. 2007;28:798-803.
101. 18F]FDG uptake in breast cancer during chemotherapy: comparison of analytical methods. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003;30:674-681.
102. Graham MM, Peterson LM, Hayward RM. Comparison of simplified quantitative analyses of FDG uptake. Nucl Med Biol. 2000;27:647-655.
103. Sugawara Y, Zasadny KR, Neuhoff AW, Wahl RL. Reevaluation of the standardized uptake value for FDG: variations with body weight and methods for correction. Radiology. 1999;213:521-525.
104. Zasadny KR, Wahl RL. Standardized uptake values of normal tissues at PET with 2-[fluorine-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose: variations with body weight and a method for correction. Radiology. 1993;189:847-850.
105. Boellaard R, Krak NC, Hoekstra OS, Lammertsma AA. Effects of noise, image resolution, and ROI definition on the accuracy of standard uptake values: a simulation study. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:1519-1527. (Pubitemid 47618506)
106. Li C, Heidt DG, Dalerba P, et al. Identification of pancreatic cancer stem cells. Cancer Res. 2007;67:1030-1037. (Pubitemid 46270758)
107. Al-Hajj M, Becker MW, Wicha M, Weissman I, Clarke MF. Therapeutic implications of cancer stem cells. Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2004;14:43-47.
108. Matsui W, Wang Q, Barber JP, et al. Clonogenic multiple myeloma progenitors, stem cell properties, and drug resistance. Cancer Res. 2008;68:190-197.
109. Huff CA, Matsui W, Smith BD, Jones RJ. The paradox of response and survival in cancer therapeutics. Blood. 2006;107:431-434.
110. Larson SM, Erdi Y, Akhurst T, et al. Tumor treatment response based on visual and quantitative changes in global tumor glycolysis using PET-FDG imaging: the visual response score and the change in total lesion glycolysis. Clin Positron Imaging. 1999;2:159-171.
111. 18F]fluoro-D-glucose. Mol Imaging Biol. 2002;4:171-178.
112. 18F-FDG PET scans. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:1449-1458.
113. Guillem JG, Moore HG, Akhurst T, et al. Sequential preoperative fluorodeoxyglucose- positron emission tomography assessment of response to preoperative chemoradiation: a means for determining longterm outcomes of rectal cancer. J Am Coll Surg. 2004;199:1-7.
114. Minn H, Zasadny KR, Quint LE, Wahl RL. Lung cancer: reproducibility of quantitative measurements for evaluating 2-[F-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose uptake at PET. Radiology. 1995;196:167-173.
115. Weber WA, Ziegler SI, Thodtmann R, Hanauske AR, Schwaiger M. Reproducibility of metabolic measurements in malignant tumors using FDG PET. J Nucl Med. 1999;40:1771-1777.
116. 18F-FDG PET in malignant tumors. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:1804-1808.
117. Minn H, Clavo AC, Grenman R, Wahl RL. In vitro comparison of cell proliferation kinetics and uptake of tritiated fluorodeoxyglucose and L-methionine in squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. J Nucl Med. 1995;36:252-258.
118. Sugawara Y, Zasadny KR, Grossman HB, Francis IR, Clarke MF, Wahl RL. Germ cell tumor: differentiation of viable tumor, mature teratoma, and necrotic tissue with FDG PET and kinetic modeling. Radiology. 1999;211:249-256.
119. Krak NC, Boellaard R, Hoekstra OS, Twisk JW, Hoekstra CJ, Lammertsma AA. Effects of ROI definition and reconstruction method on quantitative outcome and applicability in a response monitoring trial. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2005;32:294-301.
120. Erdi YE, Macapinlac H, Rosenzweig KE, et al. Use of PET to monitor the response of lung cancer to radiation treatment. Eur J Nucl Med. 2000;27:861-866. (Pubitemid 30456770)
121. Akhurst T, Ng VV, Larson SM, et al. Tumor burden assessment with positron emission tomography with [18-F] 2-fluoro 2-deoxyglucose (FDG PET) modeled in metastatic renal cell cancer. Clin Positron Imaging. 2000;3:57-65.
122. Zasadny KR, Kison PV, Francis IR, Wahl RL. FDG-PET determination of metabolically active tumor volume and comparison with CT. Clin Positron Imaging. 1998;1:123-129.
123. Benz MR, Allen-Auerbach MS, Eilber FC, et al. Combined assessment of metabolic and volumetric changes for assessment of tumor response in patients with soft-tissue sarcomas. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:1579-1584.
124. Roedl JB, Halpern EF, Colen RR, Sahani DV, Fischman AJ, Blake MA. Metabolic tumor width parameters as determined on PET/CT predict diseasefree survival and treatment response in squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus. Mol Imaging Biol. 2009;11:54-60.
125. 18F-FDG: standardized uptake values in normal tissues. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:784-788.
126. Weber WA, Ott K, Becker K, et al. Prediction of response to preoperative chemotherapy in adenocarcinomas of the esophagogastric junction by metabolic imaging. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:3058-3065. (Pubitemid 32565444)
127. Ott K, Fink U, Becker K, et al. Prediction of response to preoperative chemotherapy in gastric carcinoma by metabolic imaging: results of a prospective trial. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:4604-4610.
128. 18F] fluorodeoxyglucose uptake by positron emission tomography predicts outcome of non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:1136-1143.
129. Hamberg LM, Hunter GJ, Alpert NM, Choi NC, Babich JW, Fischman AJ. The dose uptake ratio as an index of glucose metabolism: useful parameter or oversimplification? J Nucl Med. 1994;35:1308-1312. (Pubitemid 24243143)
130. 18F]fluorodeoxyglucose. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:4587-4593.
131. Avril N, Sassen S, Schmalfeldt B, et al. Prediction of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy by sequential F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:7445-7453. (Pubitemid 46291806)
132. 18F]FDG uptake correlate with the viable tumour cell fraction? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003;30:682-688.
133. 3H-FDG uptake and key gene expression in breast cancer cells undergoing chemotherapy. J Nucl Med. 2006;47:603-608.
134. Dehdashti F, Flanagan FL, Mortimer JE, Katzenellenbogen JA, Welch MJ, Siegel BA. Positron emission tomographic assessment of "metabolic flare" to predict response of metastatic breast cancer to antiestrogen therapy. Eur J Nucl Med. 1999;26:51-56.
135. Higashi K, Clavo AC, Wahl RL. In vitro assessment of 2-fluoro-2-deoxy- Dglucose, L-methionine and thymidine as agents to monitor the early response of a human adenocarcinoma cell line to radiotherapy. J Nucl Med. 1993;34: 773-779.
136. Dai KS, Tai DY, Ho P, et al. Accuracy of the EasyTouch blood glucose selfmonitoring system: a study of 516 cases. Clin Chim Acta. 2004;349:135-141.
137. 18F- fluoro-2-deoxy-Dglucose- positron emission tomography/computed tomography in non-small-cell lung cancer for prediction of pathologic response and times to relapse after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Clin Cancer Res. 2006;12:97-106.
138. 18F-FDG PET in staging and early prediction of response to therapy of recurrent gastrointestinal stromal tumors. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:17-21.
139. Ott K, Herrmann K, Lordick F, et al. Early metabolic response evaluation by fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography allows in vivo testing of chemosensitivity in gastric cancer: long-term results of a prospective study. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14:2012-2018.
140. 18F-FDG PET/CT for monitoring the response of lymphoma to radioimmunotherapy. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:8-17.
141. Tatsumi M, Cohade C, Nakamoto Y, Wahl RL. Fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in the aortic wall at PET/CT: possible finding for active atherosclerosis. Radiology. 2003;229:831-837.
142. 18F-FDG PET for suspected recurrent non-small cell lung cancer after potentially curative therapy: impact on management and prognostic stratification. J Nucl Med. 2001;42:1605-1613.
143. 18F]-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography in patients with locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:8362-8370.
144. Hicks RJ. Time and again, children resemble their parents. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:1577-1578.
145. Blum R, Prince HM, Hicks RJ, Patrikeos A, Seymour J. Discordant response to chemotherapy detected by PET scanning: unveiling of a second primary cancer. Am J Clin Oncol. 2002;25:368-370.
146. Ford R, Schwartz L, Dancey J, et al. Lessons learned from independent central review. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:268-274.
147. MacManus MP, Seymour JF, Hicks RJ. Overview of early response assessment in lymphoma with FDG-PET. Cancer Imaging. 2007;7:10-18.
148. 18FDG-positron emission tomography during chemotherapy in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: isolated residual positivity involving bone is not usually a predictor of subsequent treatment failure. Leuk Lymphoma. 2007;48:596-600.
149. 18F-FDG PET provides high-impact and powerful prognostic stratification in staging newly diagnosed non-small cell lung cancer. J Nucl Med. 2001;42:1596-1604.