Computerized PET/CT image analysis in the evaluation of tumour response to therapy

British Journal of Radiology

Volumn 88, Issue 1048, 2015, Pages

  Lu, W ^a   Wang, J ^a   Zhang, H H ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; CONTRAST MEDIUM; RADIOPHARMACEUTICAL AGENT;

CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY; CANCER RADIOTHERAPY; CHEMORADIOTHERAPY; CLINICAL FEATURE; COMPUTER ASSISTED EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; EVALUATION STUDY; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PROGNOSTIC ASSESSMENT; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; REVIEW; SOLID TUMOR; TREATMENT RESPONSE; ALGORITHM; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; DIAGNOSTIC USE; MULTIMODAL IMAGING; NEOPLASMS; RADIOGRAPHY; SCINTISCANNING; SUPPORT VECTOR MACHINE;

ALGORITHMS; CONTRAST MEDIA; HUMANS; MULTIMODAL IMAGING; NEOPLASMS; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; RADIOPHARMACEUTICALS; SUPPORT VECTOR MACHINES; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 84930369242     PISSN: 00071285     EISSN: 1748880X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20140625     Document Type: Review

References (105)

1. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Schwartz LH, Sargent D, Ford R, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 2009; 45: 228-47. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026
2. Erasmus JJ, Gladish GW, Broemeling L, Sabloff BS, Truong MT, Herbst RS, 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: 2574-82.
3. Wahl RL, Jacene H Kasamon Y, Lodge MA. From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PETresponse criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med 2009; 50(Suppl. 1): 122S-50S. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.108.057307
4. MacManus MP, Hicks RJ, Matthews JP, McKenzie A, Rischin D, Salminen EK, 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: 1285-92.
5. Benz MR, Czernin J, Allen-Auerbach MS, Tap WD, Dry SM, Elashoff D, et al. FDGPET/CT imaging predicts histopathologic treatment responses after the initial cycle of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in high-grade soft-tissue sarcomas. Clin Cancer Res 2009; 15: 2856-63. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-08-2537
6. Krause BJ, Herrmann K, Wieder H, zum Büschenfelde CM. 18F-FDG PET and 18FFDG PET/CT for assessing response to therapy in esophageal cancer. J Nucl Med 2009; 50(Suppl. 1): 89S-96S. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.108.057232
7. Heron DE, Andrade RS, Beriwal S, Smith RP. PET-CT in radiation oncology: the impact on diagnosis, treatment planning, and assessment of treatment response. Am J Clin Oncol 2008; 31: 352-62. doi: 10.1097/COC.0b013e318162f150
8. Brindle K. New approaches for imaging tumour responses to treatment. Nat Rev Cancer 2008; 8: 94-107. doi: 10.1038/nrc2289
9. 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: 1773-82.
10. Benz MR, Allen-Auerbach MS, Eilber FC, Chen HJ, Dry S, Phelps ME, 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: 1579-84. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.108.053694
11. Kwee RM. Prediction of tumor response to neoadjuvant therapy in patients with esophageal cancer with use of 18F FDG PET: a systematic review. Radiology 2010; 254: 707-17. doi: 10.1148/radiol.09091324
12. Necib H, Garcia C, Wagner A, Vanderlinden B, Emonts P, Hendlisz A, et al. Detection and characterization of tumor changes in 18F-FDG PET patient monitoring using parametric imaging. J Nucl Med 2011; 52: 354-61. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.110.080150
13. van Velden FH, Nissen IA, Hayes W, Velasquez LM, Hoekstra OS, Boellaard R. Effects of reusing baseline volumes of interest by applying (non-)rigid image registration on positron emission tomography response assessments. PLoS One 2014; 9: e87167. doi: 10.1371/journal. pone.0087167
14. Maintz JB, Viergever MA. A survey of medical image registration. Med Image Anal 1998; 2: 1-36.
15. Sotiras A, Davatzikos C, Paragios N. Deformable medical image registration: a survey. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2013; 32: 1153-90. doi: 10.1109/TMI.2013.2265603
16. Aristophanous M, Yong Y, Yap JT, Killoran JH, Allen AM, Berbeco RI, et al. Evaluating FDG uptake changes between pre and post therapy respiratory gated PET scans. Radiother Oncol 2012; 102: 377-82. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2011.12.015
17. Tan S, Kligerman S, Chen W, Lu M, Kim G, Feigenberg S, et al. Spatial-temporal [18F] FDG-PET features for predicting pathologic response of esophageal cancer to neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2013; 85: 1375-82. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2012.10.017
18. Tan S, Zhang H, Zhang Y, Chen W, DSouza WD, Lu W. Predicting pathologic tumor response to chemoradiotherapy with histogram distances characterizing longitudinal changes in 18F-FDG uptake patterns. Med Phys 2013; 40: 101707. doi: 10.1118/1.4820445
19. Vera P, Dubray B, Palie O, Buvat I, Hapdey S, Modzelewski R, et al. Monitoring tumour response during chemo-radiotherapy: a parametric method using FDG-PET/CT images in patients with oesophageal cancer. EJNMMI Res 2014; 4: 12. doi: 10.1186/2191-219X-4-12
20. Cannon BA. Improving quantitative treatment response monitoring with deformable image registration. UT GSBS Dissertations and Theses. Houston, TX: DigitalCommons@ the Texas Medical Center; 2010.
21. Roels S, Slagmolen P, Nuyts J, Lee JA, Loeckx D, Maes F, et al. Biological imageguided radiotherapy in rectal cancer: challenges and pitfalls. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009; 75: 782-90. doi: 10.1016/j. ijrobp.2008.11.031
22. Leong T, Everitt C, Yuen K, Condron S, Hui A, Ngan SY, et al. A prospective study to evaluate the impact of FDG-PET on CTbased radiotherapy treatment planning for oesophageal cancer. Radiother Oncol 2006; 78: 254-61.
23. Due AK, Vogelius IR, Aznar MC, Bentzen SM, Berthelsen AK, Korreman SS, et al. Methods for estimating the site of origin of locoregional recurrence in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Strahlenther Onkol 2012; 188: 671-6. doi: 10.1007/s00066-012-0127-y
24. Li X, Abramson RG, Arlinghaus LR, Chakravarthy AB, Abramson V, Mayer I, et al. An algorithm for longitudinal registration of PET/CT images acquired during neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: preliminary results. EJNMMI Res 2012; 2: 62. doi: 10.1186/2191-219X-2-62
25. Yip S, Jeraj R. Use of articulated registration for response assessment of individual metastatic bone lesions. Phys Med Biol 2014; 59: 1501-14. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/59/6/1501
26. Yip S, Perk T, Jeraj R. Development and evaluation of an articulated registration algorithm for human skeleton registration. Phys Med Biol 2014; 59: 1485-99. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/59/6/1485
27. Lester H, Arridge SR. A survey of hierarchical non-linear medical image registration. Pattern Recognit 1999; 32: 129-49.
28. Chitphakdithai N, Chiang VL, Duncan JS, eds. Non-rigid registration of longitudinal brain tumor treatment MRI. Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, EMBC; 30 August to 3 September 2011 Annual International Conference of the IEEE. Boston, MA: IEEE; 2011.
29. Andronache A, von Siebenthal M, Székely G, Cattin P. Non-rigid registration of multimodal images using both mutual information and cross-correlation. Med Image Anal 2008; 12: 3-15.
30. Varadhan R, Karangelis G, Krishnan K, Hui S. A framework for deformable image registration validation in radiotherapy clinical applications. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2013; 14: 4066. doi: 10.1120/jacmp.v14i1.4066
31. MacManus M, Hicks R, Bayne M, Leong T, Peters L, Ball D. In regard to Paulino and Johnstone: use of PET and CT imaging data in radiation therapy planning. Int J Radit Oncol Biol Phys 2004; 59: 4-5. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004; 60: 1005-6.
32. Fiorino C, Reni M, Bolognesi A, Cattaneo GM, Calandrino R. Intra-and interobserver variability in contouring prostate and seminal vesicles: implications for conformal treatment planning. Radiother Oncol 1998; 47: 285-92.
33. 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: 2165-87. doi: 10.1007/s00259-010-1423-3
34. Wanet M, Lee JA, Weynand B, De Bast M, Poncelet A, Lacroix V, et al. Gradient-based delineation of the primary GTV on FDGPET in non-small cell lung cancer: a comparison with threshold-based approaches, CT and surgical specimens. Radiother Oncol 2011; 98: 117-25. doi: 10.1016/j. radonc.2010.10.006
35. Shepherd T, Teras M, Beichel RR, Boellaard R, Bruynooghe M, Dicken V, et al. Comparative study with new accuracy metrics for target volume contouring in PET image guided radiation therapy. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2012; 31: 2006-24. doi: 10.1109/TMI.2012.2202322
36. El-Baz A, Beache GM, Gimelfarb G, Suzuki K, Okada K, Elnakib A, et al. Computeraided diagnosis systems for lung cancer: challenges and methodologies. Int J Biomed Imaging 2013; 2013: 942353. doi: 10.1155/2013/942353
37. Zhao B, Schwartz LH, Moskowitz CS, Ginsberg MS, Rizvi NA, Kris MG. Lung cancer: computerized quantification of tumor response-initial results. Radiology 2006; 241: 892-8.
38. Yu H, Caldwell C, Mah K, Poon I, Balogh J, MacKenzie R, et al. Automated radiation targeting in head-and-neck cancer using region-based texture analysis of PET and CT images. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009; 75: 618-25. doi: 10.1016/j. ijrobp.2009.04.043
39. Pham DL, Xu C, Prince JL. Current methods in medical image segmentation. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 2000; 2: 315-37.
40. El Naqa I, Yang D, Apte A, Khullar D, Mutic S, Zheng J, et al. Concurrent multimodality image segmentation by active contours for radiotherapy treatment planning. Med Phys 2007; 34: 4738-49.
41. Bagci U, Udupa JK, Mendhiratta N, Foster B, Xu Z, Yao J, et al. Joint segmentation of anatomical and functional images: applications in quantification of lesions from PET, PET-CT, MRI-PET, and MRI-PET-CT images. Med Image Anal 2013; 17: 929-45. doi: 10.1016/j.media.2013.05.004
42. Han D, Bayouth J, Song Q, Taurani A, Sonka M, Buatti J, et al. Globally optimal tumor segmentation in PET-CT images: a graph-based co-segmentation method. Inf Process Med Imaging 2011; 22: 245-56.
43. Song Q, Bai J, Han D, Bhatia S, Sun W, Rockey W, et al. Optimal co-segmentation of tumor in PET-CT images with context information. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2013; 32: 1685-97. doi: 10.1109/TMI.2013.2263388
44. Tan S, Chen W, Li H, DSouza W, Lu W. Multi-modality adaptive region-growing for tumor segmentation in 18F-FDG PET/CT. J Nucl Med 2014; 55(Suppl. 1): 259.
45. Lambin P, Rios-Velazquez E, Leijenaar R, Carvalho S, van Stiphout RG, Granton P, et al. Radiomics: extracting more information from medical images using advanced feature analysis. Eur J Cancer 2012; 48: 441-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2011.11.036
46. Goldmacher GV, Conklin J. The use of tumour volumetrics to assess response to therapy in anticancer clinical trials. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2012; 73: 846-54. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2012.04179.x
47. Bruix J, Sherman M, Llovet JM, Beaugrand M, Lencioni R, Burroughs AK, et al; EASL Panel of Experts on HCC. Clinical management of hepatocellular carcinoma. Conclusions of the Barcelona-2000 EASL conference. European Association for the Study of the Liver. J Hepatol 2001; 35: 421-30.
48. Choi H, Charnsangavej C, de Castro Faria S, Tamm EP, Benjamin RS, Johnson MM, et al. CT evaluation of the response of gastrointestinal stromal tumors after imatinib mesylate treatment: a quantitative analysis correlated with FDG PET findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004; 183: 1619-28.
49. Chun YS, Vauthey JN, Boonsirikamchai P, Maru DM, Kopetz S, Palavecino M, et al. Association of computed tomography morphologic criteria with pathologic response and survival in patients treated with bevacizumab for colorectal liver metastases. JAMA 2009; 302: 2338-44. doi: 10.1001/jama.2009.1755
50. Smith AD, Shah SN, Rini BI, Lieber ML, Remer EM. Morphology, attenuation, size, and structure (MASS) criteria: assessing response and predicting clinical outcome in metastatic renal cell carcinoma on antiangiogenic targeted therapy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010; 194: 1470-8. doi: 10.2214/AJR.09.3456
51. Vaidya M, Creach KM, Frye J, Dehdashti F, Bradley JD, El Naqa I. Combined PET/CT image characteristics for radiotherapy tumor response in lung cancer. Radiother Oncol 2012; 102: 239-45. doi: 10.1016/j. radonc.2011.10.014
52. Alobaidli S, McQuaid S, South C, Prakash V, Evans P, Nisbet A. The role of texture analysis in imaging as an outcome predictor and potential tool in radiotherapy treatment planning. Br J Radiol 2014; 87: 20140369. doi: 10.1259/bjr.20140369
53. Yip CSP, Davnall F, Kozarski R, Landau D, Mason R, Lagergren J, et al, eds. CT tumoral heterogeneity as a prognostic marker in primary esophageal cancer following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Cancer Imaging and Radiation Therapy Symposium; 8-9 february 2013; Orlando, FL. Orlando, FL: ASTRO and RSNA; 2013.
54. Hicks RJ. Role of 18F-FDG PET in assessment of response in non-small cell lung cancer. J Nucl Med 2009; 50(Suppl. 1): 31S-42S. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.108.057216
55. Westerterp M, van Westreenen HL, Reitsma JB, Hoekstra OS, Stoker J, Fockens P, et al. Esophageal cancer: CT, endoscopic US, and FDG PET for assessment of response to neoadjuvant therapy-systematic review. Radiology 2005; 236: 841-51.
56. Swisher SG, Maish M, Erasmus JJ, Correa AM, Ajani JA, Bresalier R, et al. Utility of PET, CT, and EUS to identify pathologic responders in esophageal cancer. Ann Thorac Surg 2004; 78: 1152-60; discussion 1152-60.
57. Levine EA, Farmer MR, Clark P, Mishra G, Ho C, Geisinger KR, et al. Predictive value of 18-fluoro-deoxy-glucose-positron emission tomography (18F-FDG-PET) in the identification of responders to chemoradiation therapy for the treatment of locally advanced esophageal cancer. Ann Surg 2006; 243: 472-8.
58. Monjazeb AM, Riedlinger G, Aklilu M, Geisinger KR, Mishra G, Isom S, et al. Outcomes of patients with esophageal cancer staged with [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET): can postchemoradiotherapy FDG-PET predict the utility of resection? J Clin Oncol 2010; 28: 4714-21. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.30.7702
59. Kubota K. From tumor biology to clinical PET: a review of positron emission tomography (PET) in oncology. Ann Nucl Med 2001; 15: 471-86.
60. 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.
61. Aerts HJ, van Baardwijk AA, Petit SF, Offermann C, Loon Jv, Houben R, et al. Identification of residual metabolic-active areas within individual NSCLC tumours using a pre-radiotherapy (18) fluorodeoxyglucose-PET-CT scan. Radiother Oncol 2009; 91: 386-92. doi: 10.1016/j. radonc.2009.03.006
62. Belhassen S, Zaidi H. A novel fuzzy Cmeans algorithm for unsupervised heterogeneous tumor quantification in PET. Med Phys 2010; 37: 1309-24.
63. Zhao S, Kuge Y, Mochizuki T, Takahashi T, Nakada K, Sato M, et al. Biologic correlates of intratumoral heterogeneity in 18F-FDG distribution with regional expression of glucose transporters and hexokinase-II in experimental tumor. J Nucl Med 2005; 46: 675-82.
64. Zhou SM, Wong TZ, Marks LB. Using FDG-PET activity as a surrogate for tumor cell density and its effect on equivalent uniform dose calculation. Med Phys 2004; 31: 2577-83.
65. 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: 369-78. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.110.082404
66. Eary JF, OSullivan F, OSullivan J, Conrad EU. Spatial heterogeneity in sarcoma 18FFDG uptake as a predictor of patient outcome. J Nucl Med 2008; 49: 1973-9. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.108.053397
67. El Naqa I, Grigsby PW, Apte 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.
68. Marusyk A, Polyak K. Tumor heterogeneity: causes and consequences. Biochim Biophys Acta 2010; 1805: 105-17. doi: 10.1016/j. bbcan.2009.11.002
69. Hatt M, Cheze-Le Rest C, Aboagye EO, Kenny LM, Rosso L, Turkheimer FE, et al. Reproducibility of 18F-FDG and 3-deoxy-3-18F-fluorothymidine PET tumor volume measurements. J Nucl Med 2010; 51: 1368-76. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.110.078501
70. Moeller BJ, Rana V, Cannon BA, Williams MD, Sturgis EM, Ginsberg LE, et al. Prospective risk-adjusted [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and computed tomography assessment of radiation response in head and neck cancer. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 2509-15. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.19.3300
71. 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: 1519-27.
72. Prasad SR, Jhaveri KS, Saini S, Hahn PF, Halpern EF, Sumner JE. CT tumor measurement for therapeutic response assessment: comparison of unidimensional, bidimensional, and volumetric techniques initial observations. Radiology 2002; 225: 416-19.
73. Mertens J, De Bruyne S, Van Damme N, Smeets P, Ceelen W, Troisi R, et al. Standardized added metabolic activity (SAM) IN 18F-FDG PET assessment of treatment response in colorectal liver metastases. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2013; 40: 1214-22. doi: 10.1007/s00259-013-2421-z
74. OSullivan F, Roy S, OSullivan J, Vernon C, Eary J. Incorporation of tumor shape into an assessment of spatial heterogeneity for human sarcomas imaged with FDG-PET. Biostatistics 2005; 6: 293-301.
75. Cook GJ, Yip C, Siddique M, Goh V, Chicklore S, Roy A, et al. Are pretreatment 18F-FDG PET tumor textural features in non-small cell lung cancer associated with response and survival after chemoradiotherapy? J Nucl Med 2013; 54: 19-26. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.112.107375
76. Leijenaar RT, Carvalho S, Velazquez ER, van Elmpt WJ, Parmar C, Hoekstra OS, et al. Stability of FDG-PET radiomics features: an integrated analysis of test-retest and interobserver variability. Acta Oncol 2013; 52: 1391-7. doi: 10.3109/0284186X.2013.812798
77. van Velden FH, Cheebsumon P, Yaqub M, Smit EF, Hoekstra OS, Lammertsma AA, et al. Evaluation of a cumulative SUVvolume histogram method for parameterizing heterogeneous intratumoural FDG uptake in non-small cell lung cancer PET studies. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2011; 38: 1636-47. doi: 10.1007/s00259-011-1845-6
78. Schwarz JK, Lin LL, Siegel BA, Miller TR, Grigsby PW. 18-F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography evaluation of early metabolic response during radiation therapy for cervical cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008; 72: 1502-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.03.040
79. Janssen MH, Ollers MC, Riedl RG, van den Bogaard J, Buijsen J, van Stiphout RG, et al. Accurate prediction of pathological rectal tumor response after two weeks of preoperative radiochemotherapy using (18)Ffluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography-computed tomography imaging. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010; 77: 392-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.04.030
80. Hatt M, Van Stiphout R, le Pogam A, Lammering G, Visvikis D, Lambin P. Early prediction of pathological response in locally advanced rectal cancer based on sequential 18F-FDG PET. Acta Oncol 2013; 52: 619-26. doi: 10.3109/0284186X.2012.702923
81. Munden RF, Macapinlac HA, Erasmus JJ. Esophageal cancer: the role of integrated CT-PET in initial staging and response assessment after preoperative therapy. J Thorac Imaging 2006; 21: 137-45.
82. McKeown E, Nelson DW, Johnson EK, Maykel JA, Stojadinovic A, Nissan A, et al. Current approaches and challenges for monitoring treatment response in colon and rectal cancer. J Cancer 2014; 5: 31-43. doi: 10.7150/jca.7987
83. de GeusOei LF, van der Heijden HF, Corstens FH, Oyen WJ. Predictive and prognostic value of FDGPET in nonsmallcell lung cancer: a systematic review. Cancer 2007; 110: 1654-64.
84. Weber WA, Petersen V, Schmidt B, Tyndale-Hines L, Link T, Peschel C, 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: 2651-7.
85. 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 nonsmall-cell lung cancer: a prospective pilot study. The Leuven Lung Cancer Group. Ann Oncol 1998; 9: 1193-8.
86. 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 nonsmall cell lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg 2004; 78: 1903-9.
87. Oh D, Lee JE, Huh SJ, Park W, Nam H, Choi JY, et al. Prognostic significance of tumor response as assessed by sequential 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography during concurrent chemoradiation therapy for cervical cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2013; 87: 549-54. doi: 10.1016/j. ijrobp.2013.07.009
88. Zhang H, Tan S, Chen W, Kligerman S, Kim G, DSouza WD, et al. Modeling pathologic response of esophageal cancer to chemoradiation therapy using spatial-temporal 18F-FDG PET features, clinical parameters, and demographics. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2014; 88: 195-203. doi: 10.1016/j. ijrobp.2013.09.037
89. Kotsiantis SB. Supervised machine learning: a review of classification techniques. Informatica 2007; 31: 249-68.
90. Castell F, Cook GJ. Quantitative techniques in 18FDG PET scanning in oncology. Br J Cancer 2008; 98: 1597-601. doi: 10.1038/sj. bjc.6604330
91. Boellaard R. Standards for PET image acquisition and quantitative data analysis. J Nucl Med 2009; 50: 11S-20S. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.108.057182
92. Cheebsumon P, Yaqub M, van Velden FH, Hoekstra OS, Lammertsma AA, Boellaard R. Impact of [18F]FDG PET imaging parameters on automatic tumour delineation: need for improved tumour delineation methodology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2011; 38: 2136-44. doi: 10.1007/s00259-011-1899-5
93. Galavis PE, Hollensen C, Jallow N, Paliwal B, Jeraj R. Variability of textural features in FDG PET images due to different acquisition modes and reconstruction parameters. Acta Oncol 2010; 49: 1012-16. doi: 10.3109/0284186X.2010.498437
94. Kinahan PE, Fletcher JW. Positron emission tomography-computed tomography standardized uptake values in clinical practice and assessing response to therapy. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2010; 31: 496-505. doi: 10.1053/j.sult.2010.10.001
95. Boellaard R, ODoherty 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: 181-200. doi: 10.1007/s00259-009-1297-4
96. Orlhac F, Soussan M, Maisonobe JA, Garcia CA, Vanderlinden B, Buvat I. Tumor texture analysis in 18F-FDG PET: relationships between texture parameters, histogram indices, standardized uptake values, metabolic volumes, and total lesion glycolysis. J Nucl Med 2014; 55: 414-22. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.113.129858
97. Herrmann K, Ott K, Buck AK, Lordick F, Wilhelm D, Souvatzoglou M, et al. Imaging gastric cancer with PET and the radiotracers 18F-FLT and 18F-FDG: a comparative analysis. J Nucl Med 2007; 48: 1945-50.
98. Yue J, Chen L, Cabrera AR, Sun X, Zhao S, Zheng F, et al. Measuring tumor cell proliferation with 18F-FLT PET during radiotherapy of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a pilot clinical study. J Nucl Med 2010; 51: 528-34. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.109.072124
99. Chang JH, Wada M, Anderson NJ, Lim Joon D, Lee ST, Gong SJ, et al. Hypoxiatargeted radiotherapy dose painting for head and neck cancer using (18)F-FMISO PET: a biological modeling study. Acta Oncol 2013; 52: 17s23-9. doi: 10.3109/0284186X.2012.759273
100. Hicks RJ, Rischin D, Fisher R, Binns D, Scott AM, Peters LJ. Utility of FMISO PET in advanced head and neck cancer treated with chemoradiation incorporating a hypoxia-targeting chemotherapy agent. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2005; 32: 1384-91.
101. Lehtiö K, Eskola O, Viljanen T, Oikonen V, Grönroos T, Sillanmäki L, et al. Imaging perfusion and hypoxia with PET to predict radiotherapy response in head-and-neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004; 59: 971-82.
102. Wieder H, Ott K, Zimmermann F, Nekarda H, Stollfuss J, Watzlowik P, et al. PET imaging with [11C]methyl-L-methionine for therapy monitoring in patients with rectal cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2002; 29: 789-96.
103. Allen AM, Ben-Ami M, Reshef A, Steinmetz A, Kundel Y, Inbar E, et al. Assessment of response of brain metastases to radiotherapy by PET imaging of apoptosis with 18F-ML-10. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2012; 39: 1400-8. doi: 10.1007/s00259-012-2150-8
104. Sanghera B, Wong WL, Sonoda LI, Beynon G, Makris A, Woolf D, et al. FLT PET-CT in evaluation of treatment response. Indian J Nucl Med 2014; 29: 65-73. doi: 10.4103/0972-3919.130274
105. Vanderhoek M, Perlman SB, Jeraj R. Impact of different standardized uptake value measures on PET-based quantification of treatment response. J Nucl Med 2013; 54: 1188-94. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.112.113332