Detection and characterization of tumor changes in 18F-FDG PET patient monitoring using parametric imaging

Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Volumn 52, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 354-361

  Necib, Hatem ^a,b   Garcia, Camilo ^c   Wagner, Antoine ^c   Vanderlinden, Bruno ^c   Emonts, Patrick ^c   Hendlisz, Alain ^c   Flamen, Patrick ^c   Buvat, Irène ^a,b  

^a Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique   (France)

^b Paris 11 Universities   (France)

^c JULES BORDET INSTITUTE   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Advanced colorectal cancer; PET CT; Response monitoring

Indexed keywords

CAPECITABINE; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18; FLUOROURACIL; FOLINIC ACID; IRINOTECAN; OXALIPLATIN;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER GROWTH; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COLORECTAL CANCER; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DISEASE COURSE; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGING; METABOLISM; PARAMETRIC IMAGING; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TREATMENT RESPONSE; TUMOR CLASSIFICATION;

EID: 79952789282     PISSN: 01615505     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.110.080150     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. 18F-FDG PET and PET/CT in the evaluation of cancer treatment response. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:88-99.
2. Ichiya Y, Kuwabara Y, Sasaki M, et al. A clinical evaluation of FDG-PET to assess the response in radiation therapy for bronchogenic carcinoma. Ann Nucl Med. 1996;10:193-200. (Pubitemid 26197405)
3. Choi N, Fischman A, Niemierko A, et al. Dose-response relationship between probability of pathologic tumor control and glucose metabolic rate measured with FDG PET after preoperative chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced non-small-cell. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002;54:1024-1035. (Pubitemid 35292613)
4. Mac Manus M, Hicks R, Matthews J, 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)
5. Weber WA. Use of PET for monitoring cancer therapy and for predicting outcome. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:983-995. (Pubitemid 43733514)
6. 18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography: review and 1999 EORTC recommendations. Eur J Cancer. 1999;35:1773-1782.
7. Stahl A, Ott K, Schwaiger M, Weber WA. Comparison of different SUV-based methods for monitoring cytotoxic therapy with FDG PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004;31:1471-1478.
8. 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)
9. Wahl R, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge M. From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med. 2009;50 (suppl 1):122S-150S.
10. Hendlisz A, Emonts P, Covas A, et al. Is positron emission tomography (PET) with FDG an early predictor of the RECIST morphological response to chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer patients (mCRC) [abstract]? J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(suppl):15s.
11. Hudson H, Larkin R. Accelerated image reconstruction using ordered subsets of projection data. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 1994;13:601-609.
12. Ourselin S, Roche A, Prima S, Ayache N. Blockmatching: a general framework to improve robustness of rigid registration of medical images. In: Delp SL, DiGioia AM, Jaramaz B, eds. Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag; 2000:557-566.
13. Celeux G. Gaussian parsimonious clustering models. Pattern Recognit. 1995;28:781-793.
14. Celeux G, Diebolt J. The SEM algorithm: a probabilistic teacher algorithm derived from the EM algorithm for the mixture problem. Comput Statist Quart. 1985;2:73-82.
15. Biernacki C, Celeux G, Govaert G, Langrognet F. Model-based cluster and discriminant analysis with the MIXMOD software. Comput Stat Data Anal. 2006;51:587-600. (Pubitemid 44635895)
16. Holden M, Hill DLG, Denton ERE, Jarosz JM, Cox TCS, Hawkes DJ. Voxel similarity measures for 3D serial MR brain image registration. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2000;19:94-102. (Pubitemid 30594811)
17. 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.
18. Zubal IG, Spencer SS, Imam K, Smith EO, Wisniewski G, Hoffer PB. Difference images calculated from ictal and interictal Technetium-99m-HMPAO SPECT scans of epilepsy. J Nucl Med. 1995;36:684-689.