Literature DB >> 28878846

What Do We Measure in Oncology PET?

Kyoungjune Pak1, Seong-Jang Kim1,2.   

Abstract

Positron emission tomography (PET) has come to the practice of oncology. It is known that 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET is more sensitive for the assessment of treatment response than conventional imaging. In addition, PET has an advantage in the use of quantitative analysis of the study. Nowadays, various PET parameters are adopted in clinical settings. In addition, a wide range of factors has been known to be associated with FDG uptake. Therefore, there has been a need for standardization and harmonization of protocols and PET parameters. We will introduce PET parameters and discuss major issues in this review.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Computer-assisted image processing; Medical oncology; Positron-emission tomography; Radiopharmaceuticals

Year:  2016        PMID： 28878846      PMCID： PMC5567613          DOI： 10.1007/s13139-016-0416-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nucl Med Mol Imaging        ISSN： 1869-3474


  31 in total

Review 1.  Prognostic value of metabolic tumor volume and total lesion glycolysis in head and neck cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Kyoungjune Pak; Gi Jeong Cheon; Hyun-Yeol Nam; Seong-Jang Kim; Keon Wook Kang; June-Key Chung; E Edmund Kim; Dong Soo Lee
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2014-04-21       Impact factor: 10.057

2.  Summary of the UPICT Protocol for 18F-FDG PET/CT Imaging in Oncology Clinical Trials.

Authors:  Michael M Graham; Richard L Wahl; John M Hoffman; Jeffrey T Yap; John J Sunderland; Ronald Boellaard; Eric S Perlman; Paul E Kinahan; Paul E Christian; Otto S Hoekstra; Gary S Dorfman
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2015-04-16       Impact factor: 10.057

Review 3.  Accuracy and precision of radioactivity quantification in nuclear medicine images.

Authors:  Eric C Frey; John L Humm; Michael Ljungberg
Journal:  Semin Nucl Med       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 4.446

4.  Impact of the definition of peak standardized uptake value on quantification of treatment response.

Authors:  Matt Vanderhoek; Scott B Perlman; Robert Jeraj
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 10.057

5.  Simplified calculation of body-surface area.

Authors:  R D Mosteller
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1987-10-22       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  Prediction of lean body mass from height and weight.

Authors:  R Hume
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  1966-07       Impact factor: 3.411

7.  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

8.  Assessment of interobserver reproducibility in quantitative 18F-FDG PET and CT measurements of tumor response to therapy.

Authors:  Heather A Jacene; Sophie Leboulleux; Shingo Baba; Daniel Chatzifotiadis; Behnaz Goudarzi; Oleg Teytelbaum; Karen M Horton; Ihab Kamel; Katarzyna J Macura; Hua-Ling Tsai; Jeanne Kowalski; Richard L Wahl
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2009-10-16       Impact factor: 10.057

9.  Geometric method for measuring body surface area: a height-weight formula validated in infants, children, and adults.

Authors:  G B Haycock; G J Schwartz; D H Wisotsky
Journal:  J Pediatr       Date:  1978-07       Impact factor: 4.406

10.  The PET-derived tumor-to-blood standard uptake ratio (SUR) is superior to tumor SUV as a surrogate parameter of the metabolic rate of FDG.

Authors:  Jörg van den Hoff; Liane Oehme; Georg Schramm; Jens Maus; Alexandr Lougovski; Jan Petr; Bettina Beuthien-Baumann; Frank Hofheinz
Journal:  EJNMMI Res       Date:  2013-11-23       Impact factor: 3.138
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.