No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
Instrumentation factors affecting variance and bias of quantifying tracer uptake with PET/CT
1.L. K. Shankar, J. M. Hoffman, S. Bacharach, M. M. Graham, J. Karp, A. A. Lammertsma, S. Larson, D. A. Mankoff, B. A. Siegel, A. Van den Abbeele, J. Yap, and D. Sullivan, “Consensus recommendations for the use of 18F-FDG PET as an indicator of therapeutic response in patients in National Cancer Institute Trials,” J. Nucl. Med. 47, 1059–1066 (2006).
2.A. A. Lammertsma, C. J. Hoekstra, G. Giaccone, and O. S. Hoekstra, “How should we analyse FDG PET studies for monitoring tumour response?,” Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 33, 16–21 (2006).
4.R. L. Wahl, H. Jacene, Y. Kasamon, and M. A. Lodge, “From RECIST to PERCIST: Evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors,” J. Nucl. Med. 50, 122S–150S (2009).
6.M. R. MacManus, R. Hicks, R. Fisher, D. Rischin, M. Michael, A. Wirth, and D. L. Ball, “FDG-PET-detected extracranial metastasis in patients with non-small cell lung cancer undergoing staging for surgery or radical radiotherapy-survival correlates with metastatic disease burden,” Acta Oncol. 42, 48–54 (2003).
7.W. A. Weber, V. Petersen, B. Schmidt, L. Tyndale-Hines, T. Link, C. Peschel, and M. Schwaiger, “Positron emission tomography in non-small-cell lung cancer: Prediction of response to chemotherapy by quantitative assessment of glucose use,” J. Clin. Oncol. 21, 2651–2657 (2003).
8.H. A. Wieder, B. L. Brucher, F. Zimmermann, K. Becker, F. Lordick, A. Beer, M. Schwaiger, U. Fink, J. R. Siewert, H. J. Stein, and W. A. Weber, “Time course of tumor metabolic activity during chemoradiotherapy of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and response to treatment,” J. Clin. Oncol. 22, 900–908 (2004).
9.N. Avril, S. Sassen, B. Schmalfeldt, J. Naehrig, S. Rutke, W. A. Weber, M. Werner, H. Graeff, M. Schwaiger, and W. Kuhn, “Prediction of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy by sequential F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer,” J. Clin. Oncol. 23, 7445–7453 (2005).
10.F. Cachin, H. M. Prince, A. Hogg, R. E. Ware, and R. J. Hicks, “Powerful prognostic stratification by [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in patients with metastatic breast cancer treated with high-dose chemotherapy,” J. Clin. Oncol. 24, 3026–3031 (2006).
11.F. Lordick et al., “PET to assess early metabolic response and to guide treatment of adenocarcinoma of the oesophagogastric junction: The MUNICON phase II trial,” Lancet Oncol. 8, 797–805 (2007).
12.L. K. Dunnwald, J. R. Gralow, G. K. Ellis, R. B. Livingston, H. M. Linden, J. M. Specht, R. K. Doot, T. J. Lawton, W. E. Barlow, B. F. Kurland, E. K. Schubert, and D. A. Mankoff, “Tumor metabolism and blood flow changes by positron emission tomography: Relation to survival in patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced breast cancer,” J. Clin. Oncol. 26, 4449–4457 (2008).
13.R. Boellaard, W. J. Oyen, C. J. Hoekstra, O. S. Hoekstra, E. P. Visser, A. T. Willemsen, B. Arends, F. J. Verzijlbergen, J. Zijlstra, A. M. Paans, E. F. Comans, and J. Pruim, “The Netherlands protocol for standardisation and quantification of FDG whole body PET studies in multi-centre trials,” Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 35, 2320–2333 (2008).
14.S. Beaulieu, P. Kinahan, J. Tseng, L. K. Dunnwald, E. K. Schubert, P. Pham, B. Lewellen, and D. A. Mankoff, “SUV varies with time after injection in (18)F-FDG PET of breast cancer: Characterization and method to adjust for time differences,” J. Nucl. Med. 44, 1044–1050 (2003).
15.M. Westerterp, J. Pruim, W. Oyen, O. Hoekstra, A. Paans, E. Visser, J. Van Lanschot, G. Sloof, and R. Boellaard, “Quantification of FDG PET studies using standardised uptake values in multi-centre trials: Effects of image reconstruction, resolution and ROI definition parameters,” Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 34, 392–404 (2007).
16.N. Krak, R. Boellaard, O. Hoekstra, J. Twisk, C. Hoekstra, and A. Lammertsma, “Effects of ROI definition and reconstruction method on quantitative outcome and applicability in a response monitoring trial,” Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 32, 294–301 (2005).
17.V. Bettinardi, P. Mancosu, M. Danna, G. Giovacchini, C. Landoni, M. Picchio, M. C. Gilardi, A. Savi, I. Castiglioni, M. Lecchi, and F. Fazio, “Two-dimensional vs three-dimensional imaging in whole body oncologic PET/CT: A Discovery-STE phantom and patient study,” Q. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 51, 214–223 (2007).
18.S. Larson 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,” Clinical Positron Imaging 2, 159–171 (1999).
20.H. Minn, K. Zasadny, L. Quint, and R. Wahl, “Lung cancer: Reproducibility of quantitative measurements for evaluating 2-[F-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose uptake at PET,” Radiology 196, 167–173 (1995).
21.W. A. Weber, S. I. Ziegler, R. Thodtmann, A. R. Hanauske, and M. Schwaiger, “Reproducibility of metabolic measurements in malignant tumors using FDG PET,” J. Nucl. Med. 40, 1771–1777 (1999).
22.T. Kamibayashi, T. Tsuchida, Y. Demura, T. Tsujikawa, H. Okazawa, T. Kudoh, and H. Kimura, “Reproducibility of semi-quantitative parameters in FDG-PET using two different PET scanners: Influence of attenuation correction method and examination interval,” Mol. Imaging Biol. 10, 162–166 (2008).
23.C. Nahmias and L. Wahl, “Reproducibility of standardized uptake value measurements determined by 18F-FDG PET in malignant tumors,” J. Nucl. Med. 49, 1804–1808 (2008).
24.J. A. Boucek, R. J. Francis, C. G. Jones, N. Khan, B. A. Turlach, and A. J. Green, “Assessment of tumour response with (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography using three-dimensional measures compared to —A phantom study,” Phys. Med. Biol. 53, 4213–4230 (2008).
25.L. M. Velasquez, R. Boellaard, G. Kollia, W. Hayes, O. S. Hoekstra, A. A. Lammertsma, and S. M. Galbraith, “Repeatability of 18F-FDG PET in a multicenter phase I study of patients with advanced gastrointestinal malignancies,” J. Nucl. Med. 50, 1646–1654 (2009).
26.R. K. Doot, P. E. Christian, D. A. Mankoff, and P. E. Kinahan, “Reproducibility of quantifying tracer uptake with PET/CT for Evaluation of response to therapy,” in IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record, Honolulu, HI, 2007, Vol. M12-8, pp. 2833–2837.
27.P. Kinahan, H. Vesselle, J. Williams, C. Stearns, R. Schmitz, A. Alessio, L. MacDonald, O. Malawi, T. Turkington, S. Kohlmyer, and T. Lewellen, “Performance evaluation of an integrated PET/CT scanner: Discovery STE,” J. Nucl. Med. 47 (Supplement 1), 392P (2006).
28.G. E. P. Box, W. G. Hunter, and J. S. Hunter, Statistics for Experimenters (Wiley, New York, 1978), p. 88.
29.S. Shapiro and M. Wilk, “An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples),” Biometrika 52, 591–611 (1965).
30.C. Lockhart, L. MacDonald, A. Alessio, W. McDougald, R. Doot, T. Lewellen, and P. Kinahan, “Minimizing instrument calibration error to reduce the effect of variability on PET/CT SUV measurements,” J. Nucl. Med. 50 (Supplement 2), 235P (2009).
31.J. J. Hamill, C. E. Arnsdorff, M. E. Casey, X. Liu, and W. J. Raulston, “A 68Ge PET hot-sphere phantom with no cold shells,” in IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record, 2005, 5 pp.
32.S. Tong, A. M. Alessio, and P. E. Kinahan, “Noise and signal properties in PSF-based fully 3D PET image reconstruction: An experimental evaluation,” Phys. Med. Biol. 55, 1453–1473 (2010).
33.J. S. Scheuermann, J. R. Saffer, J. S. Karp, A. M. Levering, and B. A. Siegel, “Qualification of PET scanners for use in multicenter cancer clinical trials: The American College of Radiology Imaging Network experience,” J. Nucl. Med. 50, 1187–1193 (2009).
36.M. R. Benz, V. Evilevitch, M. S. Allen-Auerbach, F. C. Eilber, M. E. Phelps, J. Czernin, and W. A. Weber, “Treatment monitoring by 18F-FDG PET/CT in patients with sarcomas: Interobserver variability of quantitative parameters in treatment-induced changes in histopathologically responding and nonresponding tumors,” J. Nucl. Med. 49, 1038–1046 (2008).
37.P. Kinahan, R. Doot, P. Christian, J. Karp, J. Scheuermann, R. Zimmerman, J. Saffer, and A. McEwan, “Multi-center comparison of a PET/CT calibration phantom for imaging trials,” J. Nucl. Med. 49 (Supplement 1), 63P (2008).
38.F. H. Fahey, P. E. Kinahan, R. K. Doot, M. Kocak, H. Thurston, and T. Y. Poussaint, “Variability in PET quantitation within a multicenter consortium,” Med. Phys. 37, 3660–3666 (2010).
39.L. K. Shankar and D. C. Sullivan, “PET/CT in cancer patient management. Commentary,” J. Nucl. Med. 48, No. 1 (Supplement) 1S (2007).
Article metrics loading...
Full text loading...
Most read this month