Optimisation and harmonisation: Two sides of the same coin?

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging

Volumn 40, Issue 7, 2013, Pages 982-984

  Boellaard, Ronald ^a  

^a VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18;

CANCER PATIENT; CANCER PROGNOSIS; CANCER RECURRENCE; CANCER STAGING; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COMPUTER ASSISTED EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; DRUG UPTAKE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; LUNG CANCER; NOTE; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PREDICTOR VARIABLE; PROCESS OPTIMIZATION; TREATMENT RESPONSE;

CARCINOMA, NON-SMALL-CELL LUNG; FEMALE; HUMANS; LUNG NEOPLASMS; MALE; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY;

EID: 84879498847     PISSN: 16197070     EISSN: 16197089     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00259-013-2440-9     Document Type: Note

References (25)

1. Fletcher JW, Djulbegovic B, Soares HP, Siegel BA, Lowe VJ, Lyman GH, et al. Recommendations on the use of 18F-FDG PET in oncology. J Nucl Med 2008;49(3):480-508.
2. Czernin J, len-Auerbach M, Schelbert HR. Improvements in cancer staging with PET/CT: literature-based evidence as of September 2006. J Nucl Med 2007;48 Suppl 1:78S-88.
3. Geus-Oei LF, van der Heijden HF, Corstens FH, Oyen WJ. Predictive and prognostic value of FDG-PET in nonsmall-cell lung cancer: a systematic review. Cancer 2007;110(8):1654-64.
4. Kobe C, Scheffler M, Holstein A, Zander T, Nogoya L, Lammertsma AA, et al. Predictive value of early and late residual 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose and 18F-fluorothymidine uptake using different SUV measurements in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer treated with erlotinib. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2012;39(7):1117-27.
5. Weber WA. PET for response assessment in oncology: radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Br J Radiol 2005;Suppl 28:42-9.
6. Zander T, Scheffler M, Nogova L, Kobe C, Engel-Riedel W, Hellmich M, et al. Early prediction of nonprogression in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer treated with erlotinib by using [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose and [(18)F]fluorothymidine positron emission tomography. J Clin Oncol 2011;29(13):1701-8.
7. 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-50.
8. Young H, Baum R, Cremerius U, Herholz K, Hoekstra O, Lammertsma AA, et al. Measurement of clinical and subclinical tumour response using [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(13):1773-82.
9. Chiti A, Kirienko M, Grégoire V. Clinical use of PET-CT data for radiotherapy planning: what are we looking for? Radiother Oncol 2010;96(3):277-9.
10. Gregoire V, Chiti A. PET in radiotherapy planning: particularly exquisite test or pending and experimental tool? Radiother Oncol 2010;96(3):275-6.
11. Roels S, Slagmolen P, Nuyts J, Lee JA, Loeckcx D, Maes F, et al. Biological image-guided radiotherapy in rectal cancer: challenges and pitfalls. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009;75:782-90.
12. Thorwarth D, Schaefer A. Functional target volume delineation for radiation therapy on the basis of positron emission tomography and the correlation with histopathology. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010;54(5):490-9.
13. Weber WA. Chaperoning drug development with PET. J Nucl Med 2006;47(5):735-7.
14. Karantanis D, Kalkanis D, Allen-Auerbach M, Bogsrud TV, Subramaniam RM, Danielson A, et al. Oncologic 18F-FDG PET/CT: referring physicians' point of view. J Nucl Med 2012;53(10):1499-505.
15. Weber WA. Positron emission tomography as an imaging biomarker. J Clin Oncol 2006;24(20):3282-92.
16. Andersen FL, Klausen TL, Loft A, Beyer T, Holm S. Clinical evaluation of PET image reconstruction using a spatial resolution model. Eur J Radiol 2013;82(5):862-9.
17. Lasnon C, Hicks RJ, Beauregard JM, Milner A, Paciencia M, Guizard AV, et al. Impact of point spread function reconstruction on thoracic lymph node staging with 18F-FDG PET/CT in non-small cell lung cancer. Clin Nucl Med 2012;37(10):971-6.
18. Boellaard R, O'Doherty MJ, Weber WA, Mottaghy FM, Lonsdale MN, Stroobants SG, et al. FDG PET and PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour PET imaging: version 1.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010;37(1):181-200.
19. Boellaard R. Need for standardization of 18F-FDG PET/CT for treatment response assessments. J Nucl Med 2011;52 Suppl 2:93S-100.
20. Boellaard R. Standards for PET image acquisition and quantitative data analysis. J Nucl Med 2009;50 Suppl 1:11S-20.
21. Beyer T, Czernin J, Freudenberg LS. Variations in clinical PET/CT operations: results of an international survey of active PET/CT users. J Nucl Med 2011;52:303-10.
22. Lasnon C, Desmonts C, Quak E, Gervais R, Do P, Dubos-Arvis C, et al. Harmonizing SUVs in multicentre trials when using different generation PET systems: prospective validation in non-small cell lung cancer patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2013. doi: 10.1007/s00259-013-2391-1.
23. Cheebsumon P, Yaqub M, van Velden FH, Hoekstra OS, Lammertsma AA, Boellaard R. Impact of [(18)F]FDG PET imaging parameters on automatic tumour delineation: need for improved tumour delineation methodology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2011;38(12):2136-44.
24. 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(9):1519-27.
25. Lodge MA, Chaudhry MA, Wahl RL. Noise considerations for PET quantification using maximum and peak standardized uptake value. J Nucl Med 2012;53(7):1041-7.