Literature DB >> 16763817

How should we analyse FDG PET studies for monitoring tumour response?

Adriaan A Lammertsma1, Corneline J Hoekstra, Giuseppe Giaccone, Otto S Hoekstra.   

Abstract

FDG PET is a promising technique for monitoring tumour response early during anticancer therapy. Progress, however, has been limited owing to the multitude of methods currently in use. Here, the most promising techniques for multi-centre trials are discussed briefly, with emphasis on the need for standardisation. In addition, an approach is presented for response monitoring studies using newly developed drugs. This approach makes use of a large database of response monitoring studies, which defines the relationship between simplified clinical methods and full quantitative analysis for classic cytotoxic drugs. For a new drug, first a pilot study is performed to assess whether it affects this relationship. Based on this pilot, it is decided whether or not a simplified clinical method can be used in further studies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16763817     DOI: 10.1007/s00259-006-0131-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging        ISSN: 1619-7070            Impact factor:   9.236


  21 in total

1.  On the origin of cancer cells.

Authors:  O WARBURG
Journal:  Science       Date:  1956-02-24       Impact factor: 47.728

2.  On the use of image-derived input functions in oncological fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography studies.

Authors:  C J Hoekstra; O S Hoekstra; A A Lammertsma
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med       Date:  1999-11

3.  Prognostic relevance of response evaluation using [18F]-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography in patients with locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

Authors:  Corneline J Hoekstra; Sigrid G Stroobants; Egbert F Smit; Johan Vansteenkiste; Harm van Tinteren; Pieter E Postmus; Richard P Golding; Bonne Biesma; Frans J H M Schramel; Nico van Zandwijk; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Otto S Hoekstra
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2005-11-20       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 4.  Monitoring response to therapy in cancer using [18F]-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose and positron emission tomography: an overview of different analytical methods.

Authors:  C J Hoekstra; I Paglianiti; O S Hoekstra; E F Smit; P E Postmus; G J Teule; A A Lammertsma
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med       Date:  2000-06

5.  Graphical evaluation of blood-to-brain transfer constants from multiple-time uptake data.

Authors:  C S Patlak; R G Blasberg; J D Fenstermacher
Journal:  J Cereb Blood Flow Metab       Date:  1983-03       Impact factor: 6.200

6.  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.

Authors:  H Young; R Baum; U Cremerius; K Herholz; O Hoekstra; A A Lammertsma; J Pruim; P Price
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 9.162

7.  Primary and metastatic breast carcinoma: initial clinical evaluation with PET with the radiolabeled glucose analogue 2-[F-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose.

Authors:  R L Wahl; R L Cody; G D Hutchins; E E Mudgett
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1991-06       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Standardized uptake values of FDG: body surface area correction is preferable to body weight correction.

Authors:  C K Kim; N C Gupta; B Chandramouli; A Alavi
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  1994-01       Impact factor: 10.057

9.  Effects of noise, image resolution, and ROI definition on the accuracy of standard uptake values: a simulation study.

Authors:  Ronald Boellaard; Nanda C Krak; Otto S Hoekstra; Adriaan A Lammertsma
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 10.057

10.  Influence of the blood glucose concentration on FDG uptake in cancer--a PET study.

Authors:  P Lindholm; H Minn; S Leskinen-Kallio; J Bergman; U Ruotsalainen; H Joensuu
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  1993-01       Impact factor: 10.057

View more
  28 in total

1.  The role of (18)F-FDG PET in the differentiation between lung metastases and synchronous second primary lung tumours.

Authors:  Bernadette G Dijkman; Olga C J Schuurbiers; Dennis Vriens; Monika Looijen-Salamon; Johan Bussink; Johanna N H Timmer-Bonte; Miranda M Snoeren; Wim J G Oyen; Henricus F M van der Heijden; Lioe-Fee de Geus-Oei
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2010-06-10       Impact factor: 9.236

2.  Instrumentation factors affecting variance and bias of quantifying tracer uptake with PET/CT.

Authors:  R K Doot; J S Scheuermann; P E Christian; J S Karp; P E Kinahan
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 3.  Importance of quantification for the analysis of PET data in oncology: review of current methods and trends for the future.

Authors:  Giampaolo Tomasi; Federico Turkheimer; Eric Aboagye
Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 3.488

4.  Correlation of 18F-FDG PET/CT assessments with disease activity and markers of inflammation in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis following the initiation of combination therapy with triple oral antirheumatic drugs.

Authors:  Anne Roivainen; Sannamari Hautaniemi; Timo Möttönen; Pirjo Nuutila; Vesa Oikonen; Riitta Parkkola; Luminita Pricop; Rudyard Ress; Nicholas Seneca; Marko Seppänen; Timo Yli-Kerttula
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2012-11-15       Impact factor: 9.236

5.  Quantifying and reducing the effect of calibration error on variability of PET/CT standardized uptake value measurements.

Authors:  Catherine M Lockhart; Lawrence R MacDonald; Adam M Alessio; Wendy A McDougald; Robert K Doot; Paul E Kinahan
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2011-01-13       Impact factor: 10.057

6.  Design considerations for using PET as a response measure in single site and multicenter clinical trials.

Authors:  Robert K Doot; Brenda F Kurland; Paul E Kinahan; David A Mankoff
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2011-11-21       Impact factor: 3.173

7.  PET tumor metabolism in locally advanced breast cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy: value of static versus kinetic measures of fluorodeoxyglucose uptake.

Authors:  Lisa K Dunnwald; Robert K Doot; Jennifer M Specht; Julie R Gralow; Georgiana K Ellis; Robert B Livingston; Hannah M Linden; Vijayakrishna K Gadi; Brenda F Kurland; Erin K Schubert; Mark Muzi; David A Mankoff
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2011-03-01       Impact factor: 12.531

8.  PET/CT Assessment of Response to Therapy: Tumor Change Measurement, Truth Data, and Error.

Authors:  Paul E Kinahan; Robert K Doot; Michelle Wanner-Roybal; Luc M Bidaut; Samuel G Armato; Charles R Meyer; Geoffrey McLennan
Journal:  Transl Oncol       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 4.243

Review 9.  Methodological considerations in quantification of oncological FDG PET studies.

Authors:  Dennis Vriens; Eric P Visser; Lioe-Fee de Geus-Oei; Wim J G Oyen
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2009-11-20       Impact factor: 9.236

10.  Variance of SUVs for FDG-PET/CT is greater in clinical practice than under ideal study settings.

Authors:  Virendra Kumar; Kavindra Nath; Claudia G Berman; Jongphil Kim; Tawee Tanvetyanon; Alberto A Chiappori; Robert A Gatenby; Robert J Gillies; Edward A Eikman
Journal:  Clin Nucl Med       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 7.794

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.