The age of reason for FDG PET image-derived indices

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging

Volumn 39, Issue 11, 2012, Pages 1670-1672

  Visvikis, Dimitris ^a   Hatt, Mathieu ^a   Tixier, Florent ^a   Rest, Catherine Cheze Le ^b  

^a CHU MORVAN   (France)

^b POITIERS UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18;

ALGORITHM; CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER PROGNOSIS; CANCER RADIOTHERAPY; COLORECTAL CARCINOMA; EDITORIAL; ESOPHAGUS CANCER; GLUCOSE METABOLISM; GLYCOLYSIS; HEAD AND NECK CANCER; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; MULTIPLE CYCLE TREATMENT; PATIENT MONITORING; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PREDICTIVE VALUE; RADIOACTIVITY; RADIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STANDARDIZATION; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING; TREATMENT PLANNING; TREATMENT RESPONSE; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; WHOLE BODY PET;

GLYCOLYSIS; HUMANS; LIVER NEOPLASMS; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY;

EID: 84868211531     PISSN: 16197070     EISSN: 16197089     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00259-012-2239-0     Document Type: Editorial

References (19)

1. Weber WA. Assessing tumor response to therapy. J Nucl Med. 2009;50 Suppl 1:1S-10S.
2. Michalski MH, Chen X. Molecular imaging in cancer treatment. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38(2):358-77.
3. Tylski P, Stute S, Grotus N, Doyeux K, Hapdey S, Gardin I, et al. Comparative assessment of methods for estimating tumor volume and standardized uptake value in 18F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:268-76.
4. Vanderhoek M, Perlman SB, Jeraj R. Impact of the definition of peak standardized uptake value on quantification of treatment response. J Nucl Med. 2012;53(1):4-11.
5. 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(3):294-301.
6. Hatt M, Visvikis D, Albarghach NM, Tixier F, Pradier O, Cheze-le Rest C. Prognostic value of 18F-FDG PET imagebased parameters in esophageal cancer and impact of tumor delineation methodology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38(7):1191-202.
7. Larson SM, Erdi Y, Akhurst T, Mazumdar M, Macapinlac HA, Finn RD, 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;2:159-71.
8. Lee HY, Hyun SH, Lee KS, Kim BT, Kim J, Shim YM, et al. Volume-based parameter of (18)F-FDG PET/CT in malignant pleural mesothelioma: prediction of therapeutic response and prognostic implications. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17(10):2787-94.
9. Cazaentre T, Morschhauser F, Vermandel M, Betrouni N, Prangère T, Steinling M, et al. Pre-therapy 18F-FDG PET quantitative parameters help in predicting the response to radioimmunotherapy in non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37(3):494-504.
10. Hatt M, Visvikis D, Pradier O, Cheze-le Rest C. Baseline 18FFDG PET image-derived parameters for therapy response prediction in oesophageal cancer. Eur J NuclMedMol Imaging. 2011;38:1595- 606.
11. Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA. From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med. 2009;50 Suppl 1:122S-50S.
12. Nestle U, Kremp S, Schaefer-Schuler A, Sebastian-Welsch C, Hellwig D, Rübe C, et al. Comparison of different methods for delineation of 18F-FDG PET-positive tissue for target volume definition in radiotherapy of patients with non-small cell lung cancer. J Nucl Med. 2005;46(8):1342-8.
13. Hatt M, Cheze Le Rest C, Aboagye EO, Kenny LM, Rosso L, Turkheimer FE, et al. Reproducibility of 18F-FDG and 18F-FLT PET tumour volume measurements. J Nucl Med. 2010;51 (9):1368-76.
14. Zaidi H, El Naqa I. PET-guided delineation of radiation therapy treatment volumes: a survey of image segmentation techniques. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37(11):2165-87.
15. Hatt M, Cheze Le Rest C, Albarghach N, Pradier O, Visvikis D. PET functional volume delineation: a robustness and repeatability study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38(4):663-72.
16. Mertens J, Dobbeleir A, Ham H, D'Asseler Y, Goethals I, Van de Wiele C. Standardized added metabolic activity (SAM): a partial volume independent marker of total lesion glycolysis in liver metastases. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39(9):1441-8. doi:10.1007/s00259-012-2166-0.
17. El Naqa I, Grigsby PW, Aptea A, Kidd E, Donnelly E, Khullar D, et al. Exploring feature-based approaches in PET images for predicting cancer treatment outcomes. Pattern Recognit. 2009;42:1162-71.
18. Tixier F, Le Rest CC, Hatt M, Albarghach N, Pradier O, Metges JP, et al. Intratumor heterogeneity characterized by textural features on baseline 18F-FDG PET images predicts response to concomitant radiochemotherapy in esophageal cancer. J Nucl Med. 2011;52 (3):369-78.
19. Segal E, Sirlin CB, Ooi C, Adler AS, Gollub J, Chen X, et al. Decoding global gene expression programs in liver cancer by noninvasive imaging. Nat Biotechnol. 2007;25:675-80.