PET/CT in clinical practice

PET/CT in Clinical Practice

Volumn , Issue , 2007, Pages 1-241

  Lynch, T B ^a,b   Clarke, James ^c   Cook, Gary ^d   Hughes, Simon ^c   Love, Mark ^c   Marshall, Chris ^e   Vallely, Stephen ^f   Wilson, Lorraine ^g   Woods, Sandra ^e  

^a QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY BELFAST   (United Kingdom)

^b Northern Ireland Cancer Centre   (United Kingdom)

^c ROYAL VICTORIA HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^d ROYAL MARSDEN HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^e Northern Ireland Medical Physics Agency   (United Kingdom)

^f BELFAST CITY HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^g Blackrock Clinic Ireland   (Ireland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84892211816     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-84628-504-2     Document Type: Book

References (216)

1. Beuthien-Baumann B, Hamacher K, Oberdorfer F, Steinbach J. Preparation of fluorine-18 labeled sugars and derivatives and their application as tracer for positron emission-tomography. Carbohydr Res 2000;327:107-118.
2. Beyer T, Townsend DW, Brun T, et al. A combined PET/CT scanner for clinical oncology. J Nucl Med 2000;41:1369-1379.
3. Cook GJ, Fogelman I, Maisey MN. Normal physiological and benign pathological variants of 18-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron-emission tomography scanning: potential for error in interpretation. Semin Nucl Med 1996;26(4):308-314.
4. Cook GJ, Maisey MN, Fogelman I. Normal variants, artefacts and interpretative pitfalls in PET imaging with 18-flouro-2-deoxyglucose and carbon-11 methionine. Eur J Nucl Med 1999;26(10):1363-1378.
5. Fowler JS, Ido T. Initial and subsequent approach for the synthesis of 18FDG. Semin Nucl Med 2002;32:6-12.
6. Gordon BA, Flanagan FL, Dehdashti F. Whole body positron emission tomography: normal variations, pitfalls and technical considerations. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997;169(6):1675-1680.
7. Gorospe L, Raman S, Echeveste J, et al. Spectrum of physiological variants, artefacts, and interpretative pitfalls in cancer patients. Nucl Med Commum 2005;26(8):671-687.
8. Hoffman EJ, Phelps ME. Positron emission tomography: principles and quantitation. New York: Raven Press; 1986: pp 237-286.
9. Keyes JW Jr. SUV: standard uptake or silly useless value? J Nucl Med 1995;36:1836-1839.
10. Cherry SR, Sorenson JA, Phelps ME. Physics in Nuclear Medicine, 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2003.
11. Shreve PD, Anzai Y, Wahl RL. Pitfalls in oncological diagnosis with FDG PET imaging: physiological and benign variants. Radiographics 1999;19(1):61-77.
12. Thie JA. Understanding the standardized uptake value, its methods, and implications for usage. J Nucl Med 2004;45:1431-1434.
13. Warburg O, et al. The metabolism of cancer cells. Biochem Zeitschr 1924;152:129-169.
14. Zasadny KR, Wahl RL. Standardized uptake values of normal tissues with FDG: variation with body weight and method for correction. Radiology 1993;189(3):847-850.
15. Ahuja V, Coleman RE, Herndon J, et al. The prognostic significance of fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography imaging for patients with nonsmall cell lung carcinoma. Cancer 1998;83:918-924.
16. Arita T, Kuramitsu T, Kawamura M. Bronchogenic carcinoma: incidence of metastases to normal sized lymph nodes. Thorax 1995;50:1267-1269.
17. Bradley JD, Dehdashti F, Mintun MA, Govindan R, Trinkaus K, Siegel BA. Positron emission tomography in limited-stage small-cell lung cancer: a prospective study. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:3248.
18. Brink I, Schumacher T, Mix M, et al. Impact of [18F]FDG-PET on the primary staging of small-cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2004;31:1614-1620.
19. Cerfolio RJ, Ojha B, Bryant AS, Raghuveer V, Mountz JM, Bartolucci AA. The accuracy of integrated PET-CT compared with dedicated PET alone for the staging of patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg 2004;78:1017-1023.
20. Detterbeck FC, Falen S, Rivera MP, Halle JS, Socinski MA. Seeking a home for a PET, I: defining the appropriate place for positron emission tomography imaging in the diagnosis of pulmonary nodules or masses. Chest 2004;125:2294-2299.
21. Detterbeck FC, Vansteenkiste JF, Morris DE, Dooms CA, Khandani AH, Socinski MA. Seeking a home for a PET, III: emerging applications of positron emission tomography imaging in the management of patients with lung cancer. Chest 2004;126:1656-1666.
22. 18F]Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and its prognostic value in lung cancer. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2000;18:425-428.
23. Gambhir SS, Shepherd JE, Shah BD, et al. Analytical decision model for the cost-effective management of solitary pulmonary nodules. J Clin Oncol 1998;16:2113-2125.
24. Gould MK, Maclean CC, Kuschner WG, Rydzak CE, Owens DK. Accuracy of positron emission tomography for diagnosis of pulmonary nodules and mass lesions: a meta-analysis. JAMA 2001;285:914-924.
25. Greene FL, Page DL, Fleming ID, et al. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, Sixth Edition. New York: Springer, 2002.
26. Hauber HP, Bohuslavizki KH, Lund CH, et al. PET in the staging of small cell lung cancer. Chest 2001:119:950-954.
27. Herder GJ, Golding RP, Hoekstra OS, et al. The performance of (18) F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in small solitary pulmonary nodules. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2004;31:1231-1236.
28. Higashi K, Ueda Y, Arisaka Y, et al. FDG uptake as a biologic prognostic factor for recurrence in patients with surgically resected non-small cell lung cancer. J Nucl Med 2002;43:39-45.
29. Jeong HJ, Min JJ, Park JM, et al. Determination of the prognostic value of [(18) F]fluorodeoxyglucose uptake by using positron emission tomography in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Nucl Med Commun 2002;23:865-870.
30. Lardinois D, Weder W, Hany TF, et al. Staging of non-small-cell lung cancer with integrated positron-emission tomography and computed tomography. N Engl J Med 2003;348:2500-2507.
31. MacManus MP, Hicks RJ, Matthews JP, et al. Positron emission tomography is superior to computed tomography scanning for responseassessment after radical radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:1285-1292.
32. Midthun DE. Solitary pulmonary nodule. Curr Opin Pulm Med 2000;6:364-370.
33. Nestle U, Walter K, Schmidt S, et al. FDG PET for the planning of radiotherapy in lung cancer: high impact in patients with atelectasis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1999;44:593-597.
34. Nomori H, Watanabe K, Ohtsuka T, Naruke T, Suemasu K, Uno K. Evaluation of F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET scanning for pulmonary nodules less than 3cm in diameter, with special reference to the CT images. Lung Cancer 2004;45:19-27.
35. Pieterman R, Van Putten J, Meuzelaar J, et al. Preoperative staging of non-small cell lung cancer with PET. N Engl J Med 2000;343:254-261.
36. Port JL, Kent MS, Korst RJ, et al. Positron emission tomography scanning poorly predicts response to preoperative chemotherapy in nonsmall cell lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg 2004;77:254-259.
37. Reed CE, Harpole DH, Posther KE, et al. Results of the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z0050 trial: the utility of positron emission tomography in staging potentially operable non-small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2003;126:1943-1951.
38. Rohren EM, Lowe VJ. Update in PET imaging of non-small cell lung cancer. Semin Nucl Med 2004;34:134-153.
39. Shon IH, O'Doherty MJ, Maisey NM: Positron emission tomography in lung cancer. Sem Nucl Med 2002;32:240-271.
40. Vansteenkiste JF, Stroobants SG. Positron emission tomography in the management of non-small cell lung cancer. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am 2004;18:269-288.
41. Van Tinteren H, Hoekstra OS, Smit EF, et al. Effectiveness of positron emission tomography in the preoperative assessment of patients with suspected non-small-cell lung cancer: the PLUS multicentre randomized trial. Lancet 2002;359:1388-1393.
42. Weber, WA, Petersen, V, Schmidt, B, et al. Positron emission tomography in non-small-cell lung cancer: prediction of response to chemotherapy by quantitative assessment of glucose use. J Clin Oncol 2003;21, 2651-2657.
43. Allen-Auerbach M, Quon A, Weber WA, et al. Comparison between 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-D-glucose positron emission tomography and positron emission tomography/computed tomography hardware fusion for staging of patients with lymphoma. Mol imaging Biol 2004;6:411-416.
44. Barrington SF, O'Doherty MJ. Limitations of PET for imaging lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003;30:S117-127.
45. Buchmann I, Reinhardt M, Elsner K, et al. FDG PET in the detection and staging of malignant lymphoma. Cancer 2001;91:889-89914.
46. Depas G, De Barsy C, Jerusalem G, et al. 18F-FDG PET in children with lymphomas. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2005;32:31-38.
47. Elstrom R, Guan L, Baker G, et al. Utility of FDG-PET scanning in lymphoma by WHO classification. Blood 2003;101:3875-3876.
48. Filmont JE, Czerin J, Yap C, et al. Value of FDG-PET for predicting the clinical outcome of patients with aggressive lymphoma prior to and after stem cell transplantation. Chest Aug. 2003;124(2):608-613.
49. Hermann S, Wormanns D, Pixberg M et al. Staging in childhood lymphoma: differences between FDG-PET and CT. Nuklearmedizin 2005;44:1-7.
50. Israel O, Keidar Z, Bar-Shalom R. Positron emission tomography in the evaluation of lymphoma. Semin Nucl Med 2004;34:166-179.
51. Jerusalem G, Beguin Y, Fassotte MF, et al. Early detection of relapse by PET in the follow up of patients with Hodgkin's disease. Ann Oncol Jan 2003;14(1):123-130.
52. Jerusalem G, Beguin Y, Fasotte M, et al. Whole body PET using FDG for post treatment evaluation in HD and NHL. Blood 1999;94:429-433.
53. Jerusalem G, Beguin Y, Najjar F, et al. Positron emission tomography (PET) with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) for the staging of lowgrade non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL). Ann Oncol 2001;12:825-830.
54. Juweid ME, Wiseman GA, Vose JM, et al. Response assessment of aggressive NHL. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:4652-4661.
55. Klose T, Leidl R, Buchmann I, Brambs HJ, Reske SN. Primary staging of lymphomas: cost-effectiveness of FDG-PET versus computed tomography. Eur J Nucl Med 2000;27:1457-1464.
56. Kostakoglu L, Goldsmith SJ. 18F-FDG PET evaluation of the response to therapy for lymphoma and for breast, lung and colorectal carcinoma. J Nucl Med 2003;44:224-239.
57. Mikhaeel NG, Hutchings M, Fields PA, et al. 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.
58. Reske SN. PET and restaging of malignant lymphoma including residual masses and relapse. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003;30(Suppl 1):S89-S96.
59. Rini JN, Manalili EY, Hoffman MA, et al. F-18 FDG versus Ga-67 for detecting splenic involvement in Hodgkin's disease. Clin Nucl Med 2002;27:572-577.
60. Sasaki M, Yuwabara Y, Koga H, et al. Clinical impact of whole body FDG PET on staging malignant lymphoma. Ann Nuc Med 2002;16:337-345.
61. Schiepers C, Filmont JE, Czernin J. PET for staging of Hodgkin's disease and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003;30(Suppl 1):S82-S88.
62. Spaepen K, Stoobants S, Dupont P, et al. Prognostic value of PET with FDG after first line chemotherapy in NHL. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:414-419.
63. Spaepen K, Stroobants S, Verhoef G, Mortelmans L. Positron emission tomography with [(18) F]FDG for therapy response monitoring in lymphoma patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003;30(Suppl 1):S97-105.
64. Stumpe K, Urbinelli M, Steinert H, et al. Whole body positron emission tomography using FDG for staging of lymphoma: effectiveness and comparison with CT. Eur J Nucl Med 1998;206:475-481.
65. Torizuka T, Nakmura F, Kanno T, et al. Early therapy monitoring with FDG PET in aggressive NHL and HD. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2004;31(1):22-28.
66. Wegner EA, Barrington SF, Kingston JE et al. The impact of PET scanning on management of paediatric oncology patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2005;32:23-30.
67. Zinzani PL, Fanti S, Battista G, et al. Predictive role of PET in the outcome of Lymphoma patients. Br J Cancer 2004;31, 91(5):850-854.
68. Arslan N, Miller TR, Dehdashti F, et al. Evaluation of response to neoadjuvant therapy by quantitative FDG PET in patients with esophageal cancer. Mol Imaging Biol 2002;4:301-310.
69. Blot W, Devesa S, Kneller R, Fraumeni R. Rising incidence of adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and gastric cardia. JAMA 1991;265:1287-1289.
70. 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.
71. Choi JY, Jang HJ, Shim YM, et al. 18F-FDG PET in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma undergoing curative surgery: prognostic implications. J Nucl Med 2004;45:1843-1850.
72. Downey RJ, Akhurst T, Ilson D, et al. Whole body 18FDG-PET and the response of esophageal cancer to induction therapy: results of a prospective trial. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:428-432.
73. Flamen P, Lerut A, Van CE, et al. Utility of positron emission tomography for the diagnosis and staging of recurrent esophageal cancer. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2000;120:1085-1092.
74. Flamen P, Lerut A, Van CE, et al. Utility of positron emission tomography for the staging of patients with potentially operable esophageal carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:3202-3210.
75. Greene FL, Page DL, Fleming ID, et al. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, Sixth Edition. New York: Springer, 2002.
76. Himeno S, Yasuda S, Shimada H, Tajima T, Makuuchi H. Evaluation of esophageal cancer by positron emission tomography. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2002;32:340-346.
77. Kato H, Miyazaki T, Nakajima M, et al. The incremental effect of positron emission tomography on diagnostic accuracy in the initial staging of esophageal carcinoma. Cancer 2005;103:148-156.
78. Kole A, Plukke RJ, Nieweg O, Vaalburg W. Positron emission tomography for staging of esophageal and gastric malignancy. Br J Cancer 1998;78:521-527.
79. Lerut T, Flamen P, Ectors N, et al. Histopathologic validation of lymph node staging with FDG-PET scan in cancer of the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction: a prospective study based on primary surgery with extensive lymphadenectomy. Ann Surg 2000;232:743-752.
80. Lightdale C. Staging of esophageal cancer. Endoscopic ultrasonography. Semin Oncol 1994;21:438-446.
81. Luketich JD, Friedman DM, Weigel TL, et al. Evaluation of distant metastases in esophageal cancer: 100 consecutive positron emission tomography scans. Ann Thorac Surg 1999;68:1133-1136.
82. 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.
83. 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.
84. Van Westreenen HL, Westerterp M, Bossuyt PM, et al. Systematic review of the staging performance of 18F-flurodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in esophageal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:3805-3812.
85. Wallace MB, Nietert PJ, Earle C, et al. An analysis of multiple staging management strategies for carcinoma of the esophagus: computed tomography, endoscopic ultrasound, positron emission tomography, and thoracoscopy/ laparoscopy. Ann Thorac Surg 2002;74:1026-1032.
86. Weber WA, Ott K, Becker K, et al. Prediction of response to preoperative chemotherapy in adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction by metabolic imaging. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:3058-3065.
87. Wieder HA, Brucher BL, Zimmermann F, et al. Time course of tumor metabolic activity during chemoradiotherapy of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and response to treatment. J Clin Oncol 2004;22, 900-908.
88. Yoon YC, Lee KS, Shim YM, et al. Metastasis to regional lymph nodes in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: CT versus FDG PET for presurgical detection a prospective study. Radiology 2003;227:764-770.
89. Yoshioka T, Yamaguchi K, Kubota K, et al. Evaluation of 18F-FDG PET in patients with a, metastatic, or recurrent gastric cancer. J Nucl Med 2003;44:690-699.
90. Delbelke D, Vitola J, Sandler MP, et al. Staging recurrent colorectal carcinoma with PET. J Nucl Med 1997;38:1196-1201.
91. Donckier V, Van Laethem JL, Goldman S, et al. FDG-PET as a tool for early recognition of incomplete tumor destruction after radiofrequency ablation for liver metastases. J Surg Oncol 2003;84:215-223.
92. Drenth JP, Nagengast FM, Oyen WJ. Evaluation of premalignant colonic abnormalities: endoscopic validation of FDG-PET findings. Eur J Nucl Med 2001;28:1766-1769.
93. Even-Sapir E, Parag Y, Lerman H, et al. Detection of recurrence in patients with rectal cancer: PET/CT after abdominoperineal or anterior resection. Radiology 2004;232:815-822.
94. Fernandez FG, Drebin JA, Linehan DC, Dehdashti F, Siegel BA, Strasberg SM. Five-year survival after resection of hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer in patients screened by positron emission tomography with F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG-PET). Ann Surg 2004;240:438-447.
95. Flanagan FL, Dehdashti F, Ogunbiyi OA, et al. Utility of FDG-PET for investigating unexplained plasma CEA evaluation in patients with colorectal cancer. Ann Surg 1998;227:319-323.
96. Fong Y, Saldinger P, Akhurst T, et al. Utility of 18F-FDG positron emission tomography scanning on selection of patients for resection of hepatic colorectal metastases. Am J Surg 1999;178:282-287.
97. Greene FL, Page DL, Fleming ID, et al. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, Sixth Edition. New York: Springer, 2002.
98. Heriot AG, Hicks RJ, Drummond EG, et al. Does positron emission tomography change management in primary rectal cancer? A prospective assessment. Dis Colon Rectum 2004;47:451-458.
99. Heubner RH, Park KC, Sheperd JE, et al. A meta-analysis of the literature for whole body FDG PET detection of recurrent colorectal cancer. J Nucl Med 2000;41:1177-1189.
100. Kostakoglu L, Goldsmith SJ. 18F-FDG PET evaluation of the response to therapy for lymphoma and for breast, lung and colorectal carcinoma. J Nucl Med 2003;44:224-239.
101. Lai DT, Fulham M, Stephen MS, et al. The role of whole body positron emission tomography with FDG in identifying operable colorectal cancer metastases to the liver. Arch Surg 1996;131:703-707.
102. Meyer M. Diffusely increased colonic F-18 FDG uptake in acute enterocolitis. Clin Nucl Med. 1995;20:434-435.
103. Schiepers C, Penninckx F, De Vadder N, et al. Contribution of PET in the diagnosis of recurrent colorectal cancer: comparison with conventional imaging. Eur J Surg Oncol. 1995;21:517-522.
104. Selzner M, Hany TF, Wildbrett P, McCormack L, Kadry Z, Clavien PA. Does the novel PET/CT imaging modality impact on the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer of the liver? Ann Surg 2004;240:1027-1034.
105. Tatlidil R, Jadvar H, Bading JR, Conti PS. Incidental colonic FDG uptake: correlation with colonoscopy and histopathology. Radiology 2002;224:783-787.
106. Adam S, Baum R, Stuckensen T, Bitter K, Hor G. Prospective comparison of 18F-FDG PET with conventional imaging modalities in lymph node staging of head and neck cancer. Eur J Nucl Med 1998;25:1255-1260.
107. Benchaou M, Lehmann W, Slosman D, et al. The role of FDG-PET in preoperative assessment of N-staging in head and neck cancer. Acta Otolartngol 1996;116:332-335.
108. Brun E, Kjellen E, Tennvall J, et al. FDG PET studies during treatment: prediction of therapy outcome in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Head Neck 2002;24:127-135.
109. Chisin R, Macapinlac HA. The indications of FDG-PET in neck oncology. Radiol Clin North Am 2000;38:999-1012.
110. Goerres GW, Von Schulthess GK, Hany TF. Positron emission tomography and PET/CT of the head and neck: FDG uptake in normal anatomy, in benign lesions and in changes resulting from treatment. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;179:1337-43.
111. Greene FL, Page DL, Fleming ID, et al. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, Sixth Edition. New York: Springer, 2002.
112. Greven KM, Keyes JW Jr, Williams DW III, McGuirt WF, Joyce WT III. Occult Primary tumors of the head and neck: lack of benefit from positron emission tomography imaging with 2-[F-18]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose. Cancer 1999;86:114-118.
113. Halfpenny W, Hain SF, Biassoni L, Maisey MN, Sherman JA, McGurk M. FDG-PET: a possible prognostic factor in head and neck cancer. Br J Cancer 2002;86:512-516.
114. Hannah A, Scott AM, Tochon-Danguy H, et al. Evaulation of 18 F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and computed tomography with histopathologic correlation in the initial staging of head and neck cancer. Ann Surg 2002;236:208-217.
115. Hustinx R, Smith RJ, Benard F, et al. Dual time point fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography: a potential method to differentiate malignancy from inflammation and normal tissue in the head and neck. Eur J Nucl Med 1999;26:1345-1348.
116. Johansen J, Eigtved A, Buchwald C, et al. Implication of 18F-flouro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography on management of carcinoma of unknown primary in the head and neck: a Danish cohort study. Laryngoscope 2002;112:2009-14.
117. Kole AC, Nieweg OE, Pruim J, et al. Detection of unknown occult primary tumors using positron emission tomography. Cancer 1998;82:1160-1166.
118. Kostakoglu L, Goldsmith SJ. PET in the assessment of therapy response in patients with carcinoma of the head and neck and of the esophagus. J Nucl Med 2004;45:56-68.
119. Kubota K, Yokoyama J, Yamaguchi K, et al. FDG-PET delayed imaging for the detection of head and neck cancer recurrence after chemoradiotherapy: comparison with MRI/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2004;4:590-595.
120. Lowe VJ, Dunphy FR, Varvares M, et al. Evaluation of chemotherapy response in patients with advanced head and neck cancer using [F-18]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. Head Neck 1997;19:666-674.
121. Peng N, Yen S, Liu W, Tsay D, Liu R. Evaluation of the effect of radiation therapy to nasopharyngeal carcinoma by positron emission tomography with fluorodeoxyglucose. Clin Posit Imag 2000;3:51-56.
122. Porceddu SV, et al. Utility of positron emission tomography for the detection of disease in residual neck nodes after (chemo) radiotherapy in head and neck cancer. Head Neck 2005;27(3):175-181.
123. Schoder H, Yeung HW. Positron emission imaging of head and neck cancer, including thyroid carcinoma. Semin Nucl Med 2004;34:180-197.
124. Schoder H, Yeung HW, Gonen M, Kraus D, Larson SM. Head and neck cancer: clinical usefulness and accuracy of PET/CT image fusion. Radiology 2004;231:65-7.
125. Schwartz DL, Rajendran J, Yueh B, et al. FDG-PET prediction of head and neck squamous cell cancer outcomes. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004;130:1361-1367.
126. Stuckensen T, Kovacs AF, Adams S, Baum RP. Staging of the neck in patients with oral cavity squamous cell carcinomas: a prospective comparison of PET, ultrasound, CT and MRI. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2000;28:319-324.
127. Terhaard CH, Bongers V, Van Rijk PP, Hordijk GJ. F-18-fluoro-deoxyglucose positron-emission tomography scanning in detection of local recurrence after radiotherapy for laryngeal/pharyngeal cancer. Head Neck 2001;23:933-941.
128. Wong RJ, Lin DT, Schoder H, et al. Diagnostic and prognostic value of [(18) F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography for recurrent head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:4199-4208.
129. Yen RF, Hung RL, Pan MH, et al. 18-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography in detecting recurrent/residual nasopharyngeal carcinoma and comparison with MRI. Cancer 2003;98:283-287.
130. Abella-Columna E, Valk PE. Positron emission tomography imaging in melanoma and lymphoma. Semin Roentgenol 2002:37:129-139.
131. Ackland KM, O'Doherty MJ, Russell-Jones R. The value of positron emission tomography scanning in the detection of subclinical metatatic melanoma. J Am Acad Dermatol 2000;42:606-611.
132. Argenyi EE, Dogan AS, Urdaneta LF et al. Detection of unsuspected metastases in a melanoma patient with positron emission tomography. Clin Nucl Med 1995;20:744.
133. Belhocine T, Pierard G, De Labrassine M, et al. Staging of regional nodes in AJCC stage I and II melanoma:18FDG PET imaging versus sentinal node detection. Oncologist 2002;7:271-278.
134. Eigtved A, Andersson AP, Dahlstrom K, et al. Use of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the detection of silent metastases from malignant melanoma. Eur J Nucl Med 2000;27:70-75.
135. Finkelstein SE, Carrasquillo JA, Hoffman JM, et al. A prospective analysis of positron emission tomography and conventional imaging for detection of stage IV metastatic melanoma in patients undergoing metastasectomy. Ann Surg Oncol 2004;11:731.
136. Friedman KP, Wahl RL. Clinical use of positron emission tomography in the management of cutaneous melanoma. Semin Nucl Med 2004;34:242-253.
137. Fuster D, Chiang S, Johnson G, Schuchter LM, Zhuang H, Alavi A. Is 18F-FDG PET more accurate than standard diagnostic procedures in the detection of suspected recurrent melanoma? J Nucl Med 2004;45:1323-1327.
138. Greene FL, Page DL, Fleming ID, et al. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, Sixth Edition. New York: Springer, 2002.
139. Holder WD Jr, White RL Jr, Zuger JH, Easton EJ Jr, Greene FL. Effectiveness of positron emission tomography for the detection of melanoma metastases. Ann Surg 1998;227:764-769.
140. Longo MI, Lazaro P, Bueno C, et al. Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography imaging versus sentinal node biopsy an the primary staging of melanoma patients. Dermatol Surg 2003;29:245-248.
141. Mijnhout GS, Hoekstra OS, Van Tulder MW, Teule GJ, Deville WL. Systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of (18) F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in melanoma patients. Cancer 2001;91:1530-1542.
142. Paquet P, Henry F, Belhocine T, et al. An appraisal of 18-flourodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography for melanoma staging. Dermatology 2000;200:167-169.
143. Prichard RS, Hill AD, Skehan SJ, O'Higgins NJ. Positron emission tomography for staging and management of malignant melanoma. Br J Surg 2002;89:389-396.
144. Schroder H, Larson SM, Yeung HW. PET/CT in oncology: integration into clinical management of lymphoma, melanoma and gastrointestinal malignancies. J Nucl Med 2004;45 Suppl 1:72S-81S.
145. Stas M, Stroobants S, Dupont P, et al. 18-FDG PET scan in the staging of recurrent melanoma: additional value and therapeutic impact. Melanoma Res 2002;12:479-490.
146. Wagner JD, Schauwecker D, Davidson D, et al. FDG-PET sensitivity for melanoma lymph node metastases is dependent on tumor volume. J Surg Oncol 2001;77:237-242.
147. Wagner JD, Schauwecker D, Davidson D, et al. Prospective study of fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography imaging of lymph node basins in melanoma patients undergoing sentinal node biopsy. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:1508-1515.
148. Belhocine T, Thille A, Fridman V, et al. Contribution of whole-body 18FDG PET imaging in the management of cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2002;87:90-97.
149. Belhocine TZ. 18F-FDG PET imaging in posttherapy monitoring of cervical cancers: from diagnosis to prognosis. J Nucl Med 2004;45:1602-1604.
150. Berchuk A, Boente MP, Bast RC Jnr. The use of tumour markers in the management of patients with gynaecological carcinomas. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1992;35:45-54.
151. Fenchel S, Grab D, Nuessle K, et al. Asymptomatic adnexal masses: correlation of FDG PET and histopathologic findings. Radiology 2002;223:780-788.
152. Greene FL, Page DL, Fleming ID, et al. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, Sixth Edition. New York: Springer, 2002.
153. Grigsby PW, Siegel BA, Dehdashti F. Lymph node staging by positron emission tomography in patients with carcinoma of the cervix. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:3745-3749.
154. Grigsby PW, Siegel BA, Dehdashti F, Mutch DG. Posttherapy surveillance monitoring of cervical cancer by FDG-PET. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003;55:907-913.
155. Hain SF, O'Doherty MJ, Timothy AR, et al. Fluorodeoxyglucose-PET in the evaluation of germ cell tumours at relapse. Br J Cancer 2000;83:863-869.
156. Hain SF, O'Doherty MJ, Timothy AR et al. Fluorodeoxyglucose-PET in the initial staging of germ cell tumours. Eur J Nucl Med 2000;27:590-594.
157. Havrilesky LJ, Kulasingam SL, Matchar DB, Myere ER. FDG-PET for management of cervical and ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2005(1):183-191.
158. Hubner KF, McDonald TW, Niethammer JG, Smith GT, Gould HR, Buonocore E. Assessment of primary and metastatic ovarian cancer by positron emission tomography (PET) using 2-[18F]deoxyglucose (2-[18F]FDG). Gynecol Oncol 1993;51:197-204.
159. Lai CH, Huang KG, See LC et al. Restaging of recurrent cervical carcinoma with dual-phase [18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography. Cancer Feb. 1, 2004;100(3):544-552.
160. Lassen U, Daugaard G, Eigtved A et al. Whole body FDG-PET in patients with stage I non-seminomatous germ cell tumours. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2005;30:396-402.
161. Lerman H, Metser U, Grisaru D, Fishman A, Lievshitz G, Even-Sapir E. Normal and abnormal 18F-FDG endometrial and ovarian uptake in pre- and post-menopausal patients: assessment by PET/CT. J Nucl Med 2004;45:266-271.
162. Lin WC, Hung YC, Yeh LS, Kao CH, Yen RF, Shen YY. Usefulness of (18) F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography to detect para-aortic lymph nodal metastasis in advanced cervical cancer with negative computed tomography findings. Gynecol Oncol 2003;89:73-76.
163. Ma SY, See LC, Lai CH, et al. Delayed (18) F-FDG PET for detection of paraaortic lymph node metastases in cervical cancer patients. J Nucl Med 2003;44:1775-1783.
164. Miller TR, Pinkus E, Dehdashti F, Grigsby PW. Improved prognostic value of 18F-FDG PET using a simple visual analysis of tumor characteristics in patients with cervical cancer. J Nucl Med 2003;44:192-197.
165. Narayan K, Hicks RJ, Jobling T, Bernshaw D, McKenzie AF. A comparison of MRI and PET scanning in surgically staged loco-regionally advanced cervical cancer: potential impact on treatment. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2001;11:263-271.
166. Reinhardt MJ, Ehritt-Braun C, Vogelgesang D, et al. Metastatic lymph nodes in patients with cervical cancer: detection with MR imaging and FDG PET. Radiology 2001;218:776-782.
167. Reinhardt MJ, Ehritt-Braun C, Vogelgesang D, et al. Metastatic lymph nodes in patients with cervical cancer: detection with MR imaging and FDG PET. Radiology 2001;218(3):776-782.
168. Reinhardt MJ, Ehritt-Braun C, Vogelgesang D, et al. Metastatic lymph nodes in patients with cervical cancer: detection with MR imaging and FDG PET. Radiology 2001;218(3):776-782.
169. Rose PG, Adler LP, Rodriguez M, Faulhaber PF, Abdul-Karim FW, Miraldi F. Positron emission tomography for evaluating paraaortic nodal metastasis in locally advanced cervical cancer before surgical staging: a surgicopathologic study. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:41-45.
170. Ryu SY, Kim MH, Choi SC, Choi CW, Lee KH. Detection of early recurrence with 18F-FDG PET in patients with cervical cancer. J Nucl Med 2003;44:347-352.
171. Tempany CM, Zou KH, Silverman SG, et al. Staging of advanced ovarian cancer: comparison of imaging modalities-report from the Radiological Diagnostic Oncology Group. Radiology 2000;215:761-767.
172. Tsai CS, Chang TC, Lai CH, et al. Preliminary report of using FDG-PET to detect extrapelvic lesions in cervical cancer patients with enlarged pelvic lymph nodes on MRI/CT. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004;58:1506-1512.
173. Unger JB, Ivy JJ, Connor P, et al. Detection of recurrent cervical cancer by whole-body FDG PET scan in asymptomatic and symptomatic women. Gynecol Oncol 2004;94(1):212-216.
174. Unger JB, Ivy JJ, Connor P, et al. Detection of recurrent cervical cancer by whole-body FDG PET scan in asymptomatic and symptomatic women. Gynecol Oncol 2004;94(1):212-216.
175. Yen TC, See LC, Chang TC, et al. Defining the priority of using 18F-FDG PET for recurrent cervical cancer. J Nucl Med 2004;45:1632-1639.
176. Yoshida Y, Kurokawa T, Kawahara K, et al. Metabolic monitoring of advanced uterine cervical cancer neoadjuvant chemotherapy by using [F-18]-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography: preliminary results in three patients. Gynecol Oncol 2004;95:597-602.
177. Asad S, Aquino SL, Piyavisetpat N, Fischman AJ. False-positive FDG positron emission tomography uptake in nonmalignant chest abnormalities. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004;182:983-989.
178. Barrington SF, Maisey MN. Skeletal muscle uptake of fluorine-18-FDG: effect of oral diazepam. J Nucl Med 1996;37(7):1127-1129.
179. Chen YK, Chen YL, Liao AC, Shen YY, Kao CH. Elevated 18F-FDG uptake in skeletal muscles and thymus: a clue for the diagnosis of Grave's disease. Nucl Med Commun 2004;25:115-121.
180. Cohade C, Mourtzikos KA, Wahl RL. "USA-Fat": prevalence is related to ambient outdoor temperature-evaluation with 18F-FDG PET/CT. J Nucl Med 2003;44:1267-1270.
181. Cohade C, Osman M, Pannu HK, et al. Uptake in supraclavicular area fat: description on 18F-FDG PET/CT. J Nucl Med 2003;44:170-176.
182. Cook GJ, Fogelman I, Maisey MN. Normal physiological and benign pathological variants of 18-Flouro-2-Deoxyglucose positron-emission tomography scanning: potential for error in interpretation. Semin Nucl Med 1996;26(4):308-314.
183. Cook GJ, Maisey MN, Fogelman I, Normal variants, artefacts and interpretative pitfalls in PET imaging with 18-Flouro-2-Deoxyglucose and carbon-11 methionine. Eur J Nucl Med 1999;26(10):1363-1378.
184. Fayad LM, Cohade C, Wahl RL, Fishman EK. Sacral fractures: a potential pitfall of FDG positron emission tomography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;181:1239-1243.
185. Ferdinand B, Gupta P, Kramer EL. Spectrum of thymic uptake at 18F-FDG PET. Radiographics 2004;24:1611-1616.
186. Gordon BA, Flanagan FL, Dehdashti F. Whole body positron emission tomography: normal variations, pitfalls and technical considerations. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997;169(6):1675-1680.
187. Goerres GW, Ziegler SI, Burger C, Berthold T, Von Schulthess GK, Buck A. Artifacts at PET and PET/CT caused by metallic hip prosthetic material. Radiology 2003:226:577-584.
188. Heller MT, Meltzer CC, Fukui MB et al. Supraphysiological FDG uptake in the non-paralyzed vocal cord. Resolution of a false positive PET result with combined PET-CT imaging. Clin Positron Imaging 2000;3(5):207-211.
189. Kamel EM, Thumshirn M, Truninger K, et al. Significance of incidental 18F-FDG accumulations in the gastrointestinal tract in PET/CT: correlation with endoscopic and histopathologic results. J Nucl Med 2004;45:1804-1810.
190. Koga H, Sasaki M, Kuwabara Y, et al. An analysis of the physiological FDG uptake pattern in the stomach. Ann Nucl Med 2003;17:733-738.
191. Nakahara T, Fujii H, Ide M, et al. FDG uptake in the physiologically normal thymus: comparison of FDG positron emission tomography and CT. Br J Radiol 2001;74(885):821-824.
192. Pandit-Taskar N, Sinha A, Gonen M, et al. Testicular uptake in 18FDG PET scan. J Nucl Med 2001;5(S):287P.
193. Shon IH, Fogelman I. F-18 FDG positron emission tomography and benign fractures. Clin Nucl Med 2003;28:171-175.
194. Shreve PD, Anzai Y, Wahl RL. Pitfalls in oncological diagnosis with FDG PET imaging: physiological and benign variants. Radiographics 1999;19(1):61-77.
195. Shreve PD, Wahl RL. Normal variants in FDG PET imaging. In: RL Wahl, ed. Principles and practice of positron emission tomography. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2002:111-136.
196. Tatidil R, Jadvar H, Bading JR, Conti PS. Incidental colonic fluorodeoxyglucose uptake: correlation with colonoscopic and histopathologic findings. Radiology 2002;224(3):783-787.
197. Truong MT, Erasmus JJ, Munden RF, et al. Focal FDG uptake in mediastinal brown fat mimicking malignancy: a potential pitfall resolved on PET/CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004;183:1127-1132.
198. Yeung HW, Grewal RK, Gonen M, Schoder H, Larson SM. Patterns of (18) F-FDG uptake in adipose tissue and muscle: a potential source of false-positives for PET. J Nucl Med 2003;44:1789-1796.
199. Agress H Jr, Cooper BZ. Detection of clinically unexpected malignant and premalignant tumors with whole-body FDG PET: histopathologic comparison. Radiology 2004;230:417-422.
200. Bai C, Kinahan PE, Brasse D, et al. An analytic study of the effects of attenuation on tumor detection in whole-body PET oncology imaging. J Nucl Med 2003;44:1855-1861.
201. Beyer T, Townsend DW, Brun T, et al. A combined PET/CT scanner for clinical oncology. J Nucl Med 2000;41:1369-1379.
202. Bleckmann C, Dose J, Bohuslavizki KH, et al. Effect of attenuation correction on lesion detectability in FDG PET of breast cancer. J Nucl Med 1999;40:2021-2024.
203. 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.
204. Bohnen N. Neurological applications. In: RL Wahl, ed. Principles and practice of positron emission tomography. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2002:276-297.
205. Cherry SR, Sorenson JA, Phelps ME. Physics in Nuclear Medicine, 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Saunders, 2003.
206. Conrad GR, Sinha P. Narrow time-window dual-point 18F-FDG PET for the diagnosis of thoracic malignancy. Nucl Med Commun 2003;24:1129-1137.
207. Dobert N, Hamscho N, Menzel C, Neuss L, Kovacs AF, Grunwald F. Limitations of dual time point FDG-PET imaging in the evaluation of focal abdominal lesions. Nuklearmedizin 2004;43:143-149.
208. Erdi YE, Nehmeh SA, Pan T, et al. The CT motion quantitation of lung lesions and its impact on PET-measured SUVs. J Nucl Med 2004;45:1287-1292.
209. Hoffman EJ, Phelps ME. Positron emission tomography: principles and quantitation. New York: Raven Press; 1986: pp 237-286.
210. Jadvar H, Parker JA. Clinical PET and PET/CT: Springer 2005.
211. Jaskowiak CJ, Bianco JA, Perlman SB, Fine JP. Influence of reconstruction iterations on 18F-FDG PET/CT standardized uptake values. J Nucl Med 2005;46:424-428.
212. Nakamoto Y, Osman M, Cohade C, et al. PET/CT: comparison of quantitative tracer uptake between germanium and CT transmission attenuation-corrected images. J Nucl Med 2002;43:1137-1143.
213. Pandit-Taskar N, Schoder H, Gonen M, Larson SM, Yeung HW. Clinical significance of unexplained abnormal focal FDG uptake in the abdomen during whole-body PET. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004;183:1143-1147.
214. Schoder H, Erdi YE, Chao K, Gonen M, Larson SM, Yeung HW. Clinical implications of different image reconstruction parameters for interpretation of whole-body PET studies in cancer patients. J Nucl Med 2004;45:559-566.
215. Wahl RL. To AC or not to AC: that is the question. J Nucl Med 1999;40:2025-2028.
216. Zasadny KR, Wahl RL. Standardized uptake values of normal tissues with FDG: variation with body weight and method for correction. Radiology 1993;189(3):847-850.