Advertisement

Molecular Imaging and Biology

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 33–46 | Cite as

PET/CT-Based Response Evaluation in Cancer—a Systematic Review of Design Issues

  • Oke GerkeEmail author
  • Karen Ehlers
  • Edith Motschall
  • Poul Flemming Høilund-Carlsen
  • Werner Vach
Review Article

Abstract

Positron emission tomography/x-ray computed tomography (PET/CT) has long been discussed as a promising modality for response evaluation in cancer. When designing respective clinical trials, several design issues have to be addressed, especially the number/timing of PET/CT scans, the approach for quantifying metabolic activity, and the final translation of measurements into a rule. It is unclear how well these issues have been tackled in quest of an optimised use of PET/CT in response evaluation. Medline via Ovid and Science Citation Index via Web of Science were systematically searched for articles from 2015 on cancer patients scanned with PET/CT before and during/after treatment. Reports were categorised as being either developmental or evaluative, i.e. focusing on either the establishment or the evaluation of a rule discriminating responders from non-responders. Of 124 included papers, 112 (90 %) were accuracy and/or prognostic studies; the remainder were response-curve studies. No randomised controlled trials were found. Most studies were prospective (62 %) and from single centres (85 %); median number of patients was 38.5 (range 5–354). Most (69 %) of the studies employed only one post-baseline scan. Quantification was mainly based on SUVmax (91 %), while change over time was most frequently used to combine measurements into a rule (79 %). Half of the reports were categorised as developmental, the other half evaluative. Most development studies assessed only one element (35/62, 56 %), most frequently the choice of cut-off points (25/62, 40 %). In summary, the majority of studies did not address the essential open issues in establishing PET/CT for response evaluation. Reasonably sized multicentre studies are needed to systematically compare the many different options when using PET/CT for response evaluation.

Key words

Cancer Positron emission tomography Response evaluation Study design SUVmax Systematic review 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express their gratitude to Claire Gudex (University of Southern Denmark) for proofreading the manuscript.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

11307_2019_1351_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (262 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 261 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Rohde M, Dyrvig AK, Johansen J et al (2014) 18F-fluoro-deoxy-glucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography in diagnosis of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer 50:2271–2279PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vilstrup MH, Torigian DA (2014) [18F]Fluorodeoxyglucose PET in thoracic malignancies. PET Clin 9:391–420 vPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mylam KJ, Nielsen AL, Pedersen LM, Hutchings M (2014) Fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. PET Clin 9:443–455 viPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hess S, Bjerring OS, Pfeiffer P, Høilund-Carlsen PF (2016) Personalized clinical decision making in gastrointestinal malignancies: the role of PET. PET Clin 11:273–283PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Samim M, El-Haddad GE, Molenaar IQ et al (2014) [18F]Fluorodeoxyglucose PET for interventional oncology in liver malignancy. PET Clin 9:469–495 viPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Speirs CK, Grigsby PW, Huang J et al (2015) PET-based radiation therapy planning. PET Clin 10:27–44PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hildebrandt MG, Gerke O, Baun C et al (2016) [18F]Fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) in suspected recurrent breast cancer: a prospective comparative study of dual-time-point FDG-PET/CT, contrast-enhanced CT, and bone scintigraphy. J Clin Oncol 34:1889–1897PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Riedl CC, Pinker K, Ulaner GA et al (2017) Comparison of FDG-PET/CT and contrast-enhanced CT for monitoring therapy response in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 44:1428–1437PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Weber WA (2005) Use of PET for monitoring cancer therapy and for predicting outcome. J Nucl Med 46:983–995PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Allen-Auerbach M, Weber WA (2009) Measuring response with FDG-PET: methodological aspects. Oncologist 14:369–377PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Weber WA (2009) Assessing tumor response to therapy. J Nucl Med 50(Suppl 1):1S–10SPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Basu S, Kumar R, Ranade R (2015) Assessment of treatment response using PET. PET Clin 10:9–26PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Høilund-Carlsen PF, Hess S, Werner TJ, Alavi A (2018) Cancer metastasizes to the bone marrow and not to the bone: time for a paradigm shift! Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 45:893–897PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Boellaard R (2011) Need for standardization of 18F-FDG PET/CT for treatment response assessments. J Nucl Med 52(Suppl 2):93S–100SPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Boellaard R, Delgado-Bolton R, Oyen WJ et al (2015) FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 42:328–354PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Basu S, Zaidi H, Salavati A, Hess S, Carlsen PF, Alavi A (2014) FDG PET/CT methodology for evaluation of treatment response in lymphoma: from “graded visual analysis” and “semiquantitative SUVmax” to global disease burden assessment. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 41:2158–2160PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lindgren Belal S, Sadik M, Kaboteh R et al (2017) 3D skeletal uptake of 18F sodium fluoride in PET/CT images is associated with overall survival in patients with prostate cancer. EJNMMI Res 7:15PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sadik M, Polymeri E, Kaboteh R et al (2017) Automated 3D segmentation of the prostate gland in CT images: a first step towards objective measurements of prostate uptake in PET and SPECT images. J Nucl Med 58(Suppl 1):1074Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bieth M, Krönke M, Tauber R et al (2017) Exploring new multimodal quantitative imaging indices for the assessment of osseous tumor burden in prostate cancer using 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT. J Nucl Med 58:1632–1637PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Borelli P, Mortensen M, Enqvist O et al (2018) Artificial intelligence based method for automated PET/CT measurements of prostate gland volume and choline uptake. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 45(Suppl 1):S531Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Deroose CM, Stroobants S, Liu Y, Shankar LK, Bourguet P (2017) Using PET for therapy monitoring in oncological clinical trials: challenges ahead. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 44(Suppl 1):32–40PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 339:b2535PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Atkins D, Chang SM, Gartlehner G et al (2011) Assessing applicability when comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the Effective Health Care Program. J Clin Epidemiol 64:1198–1207PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J et al (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 339:b2700PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Vach W, Høilund-Carlsen PF, Fischer BM et al (2011) How to study optimal timing of PET/CT for monitoring of cancer treatment. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 1:54–62PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J et al (2009) New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 45:228–247PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA (2009) From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med 50(Suppl 1):122S–150SPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Aras M, Erdil TY, Dane F et al (2016) Comparison of WHO, RECIST 1.1, EORTC, and PERCIST criteria in the evaluation of treatment response in malignant solid tumors. Nucl Med Commun 37:9–15PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Willemsen AECAB, Vlenterie M, van Herpen CML et al (2016) Positron emission tomography response criteria in solid tumours criteria for quantitative analysis of [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with integrated computed tomography for treatment response assessment in metastasised solid tumours: all that glitters is not gold. Eur J Cancer 56:54–58PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Min SJ, Jang HJ, Kim JH (2016) Comparison of the RECIST and PERCIST criteria in solid tumors: a pooled analysis and review. Oncotarget 7:27848–27854PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    O JH, Lodge MA, Wahl RL (2016) Practical PERCIST: a simplified guide to PET response criteria in solid tumors 1.0. Radiology 280:576–584PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ribrag V (2017) Toward common response evaluation criteria for solid tumors and lymphomas: RECIL and RECIST? Ann Oncol 28:1409–1411PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    O JH, Wahl RL (2018) PERCIST in perspective. Nucl Med Mol Imaging 52:1–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bagni O, Filippi L, Pelle G et al (2015) Total lesion glycolysis and sequential 90Y-selective internal radiation therapy in breast cancer liver metastases: preliminary results. Cancer Biother Radiopharm 30:421–426PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bruce JY, Scully PC, Carmichael LL et al (2015) Pharmacodynamic study of axitinib in patients with advanced malignancies assessed with 18F-3′deoxy-3′fluoro-L-thymidine positron emission tomography/computed tomography. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 76:187–195PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Cascales-Campos PA, Ramirez P, Lopez V et al (2015) Prognostic value of 18-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography after transarterial chemoembolization in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma undergoing orthotopic liver transplantation. Transplant Proc 47:2374–2376PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Chacon M, Eleta M, Espindola AR et al (2015) Assessment of early response to imatinib 800 mg after 400 mg progression by 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET in patients with metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Fut Oncol 11:953–964Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Chen H, Li Y, Wu H et al (2015) 3′-deoxy-3′-[18F]-fluorothymidine PET/CT in early determination of prognosis in patients with esophageal squamous cell cancer: comparison with [18F]-FDG PET/CT. Strahlenther Onkol 191:141–152PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Chhabra A, Ong LT, Kuk D et al (2015) Prognostic significance of PET assessment of metabolic response to therapy in oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Br J Cancer 113:1658–1665PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Choi M, Kollepara SL, Heilbrun LK, Smith D, Shields AF, Philip PA (2015) PET scans as a predictive marker of survival in advanced colorectal cancer. Clin Colorectal Cancer 14:35–40PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Correa-Gallego C, Gavane S, Grewal R et al (2015) Prospective evaluation of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in patients receiving hepatic arterial and systemic chemotherapy for unresectable colorectal liver metastases. HPB (Oxford) 17:644–650Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Czuczman MS, Goy A, Lamonica D et al (2015) Phase II study of bendamustine combined with rituximab in relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma: efficacy, tolerability, and safety findings. Ann Hematol 94:2025–2032PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    El-Galaly TC, Pedersen MB, Hutchings M et al (2015) Utility of interim and end-of-treatment PET/CT in peripheral T-cell lymphomas: a review of 124 patients. Am J Hematol 90:975–980PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Elimova E, Wang X, Etchebehere E et al (2015) 18-fluorodeoxy-glucose positron emission computed tomography as predictive of response after chemoradiation in oesophageal cancer patients. Eur J Cancer 51:2545–2552PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Fendler WP, Lehmann M, Todica A et al (2015) PET response criteria in solid tumors predicts progression-free survival and time to local or distant progression after chemotherapy with regional hyperthermia for soft-tissue sarcoma. J Nucl Med 56:530–537PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Filippi L, Pelle G, Cianni R et al (2015) Change in total lesion glycolysis and clinical outcome after 90Y radioembolization in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Nucl Med Biol 42:59–64PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Gandikota N, Hartridge-Lambert S, Migliacci JC et al (2015) Very low utility of surveillance imaging in early-stage classic Hodgkin lymphoma treated with a combination of doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine and radiation therapy. Cancer 121:1985–1992PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Ganesan P, Rajendranath R, Kannan K et al (2015) Phase II study of interim PET-CT-guided response-adapted therapy in advanced Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Ann Oncol 26:1170–1174PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Giunta F, Zotta M, Menga M et al (2015) Using PET-CT in the restaging of primitive mediastinal B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL) after chemotherapy: which criteria should we use? Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 59:214–219PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Groheux D, Sanna A, Majdoub M et al (2015) Baseline tumor 18F-FDG uptake and modifications after 2 cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy are prognostic of outcome in ER+/HER2- breast Cancer. J Nucl Med 56:824–831PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Han EJ, Yang YJ, Park JC et al (2015) Prognostic value of early response assessment using 18F-FDG PET/CT in chemotherapy-treated patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. Nucl Med Commun 36:1187–1194PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Harris JP, Chang-Halpenny CN, Maxim PG et al (2015) Outcomes of modestly hypofractionated radiation for lung tumors: pre- and mid-treatment positron emission tomography-computed tomography metrics as prognostic factors. Clin Lung Cancer 16:475–485PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Hendlisz A, Deleporte A, Delaunoit T et al (2015) The prognostic significance of metabolic response heterogeneity in metastatic colorectal cancer. PLoS One 10:e0138341PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Huang W, Liu B, Fan M et al (2015) The early predictive value of a decrease of metabolic tumor volume in repeated 18F-FDG PET/CT for recurrence of locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer with concurrent radiochemotherapy. Eur J Radiol 84:482–488PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Huang JW, Yeh HL, Hsu CP et al (2015) To evaluate the treatment response of locally advanced esophageal cancer after preoperative chemoradiotherapy by FDG-PET/CT scan. J Chin Med Assoc 78:229–234PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Hyun SH, Ahn HK, Park YH et al (2015) Volume-based metabolic tumor response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy is associated with an increased risk of recurrence in breast cancer. Radiology 275:235–244PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Iltis A, Eder V, Blasco H et al (2015) Decisional early interim 18F-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography after two cycles of chemotherapy in de novo Hodgkin lymphoma. Acta Haematol 133:172–178PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Jiang C, Zhang X, Jiang M et al (2015) Assessment of the prognostic capacity of pretreatment, interim, and post-therapy 18F-FDG PET/CT in extranodal natural killer/T-cell lymphoma, nasal type. Ann Nucl Med 29:442–451PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Jiang C, Su MG, Kosik RO et al (2015) The Deauville 5-point scale improves the prognostic value of interim FDG PET/CT in extranodal natural killer/T-cell lymphoma. Clin Nucl Med 40:767–773PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Jung SH, Ahn JS, Kim YK et al (2015) Prognostic significance of interim PET/CT based on visual, SUV-based, and MTV-based assessment in the treatment of peripheral T-cell lymphoma. BMC Cancer 15:198PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Katahira-Suzuki R, Hata M, Tateishi U et al (2015) Definitive chemo-radiotherapy for squamous cell carcinoma of the pharynx: impact of baseline low hemoglobin level (<12 g/dL) and post-radiation therapy F-18 FDG-PET/CT. Ann Nucl Med 29:37–45PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Keam B, Kim SB, Shin SH et al (2015) Phase 2 study of dovitinib in patients with metastatic or unresectable adenoid cystic carcinoma. Cancer 121:2612–2617PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Kim SJ, Chang S (2015) Volumetric parameters changes of sequential 18F-FDG PET/CT for early prediction of recurrence and death in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer treated with preoperative chemoradiotherapy. Clin Nucl Med 40:930–935PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Li Y, Lin Q, Luo Z et al (2015) Value of sequential 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG PET/CT) in prediction of the overall survival of esophageal cancer patients treated with chemoradiotherapy. Int J Clin Exp Med 8:10947–10955PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Liu FY, Yen TC, Wang JY, Yang TS (2015) Early prediction by 18F-FDG PET/CT for progression-free survival and overall survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer receiving third-line cetuximab-based therapy. Clin Nucl Med 40:200–205PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    LoGiurato B, Matthews R, Safaie E et al (2015) 18F-FDG PET-CT: predicting recurrence in patients following percutaneous cryoablation treatment for stage I primary non-small-cell lung cancer. Nucl Med Commun 36:908–913PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Lopci E, Zucali PA, Ceresoli GL et al (2015) Quantitative analyses at baseline and interim PET evaluation for response assessment and outcome definition in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 42:667–675PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Ma DJ, Galanis E, Anderson SK et al (2015) A phase II trial of everolimus, temozolomide, and radiotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma: NCCTG N057K. Neuro-Oncology 17:1261–1269PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Mamot C, Klingbiel D, Hitz F et al (2015) Final results of a prospective evaluation of the predictive value of interim positron emission tomography in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma treated with R-CHOP-14 (SAKK 38/07). J Clin Oncol 33:2523–2529PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Markovina S, Duan F, Snyder BS et al (2015) Regional lymph node uptake of [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose after definitive chemoradiation therapy predicts local-regional failure of locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer: results of ACRIN 6668/RTOG 0235. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 93:597–605PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    McQuillan AD, Macdonald WB, Turner JH (2015) Phase II study of first-line 131I-rituximab radioimmunotherapy in follicular non-Hodgkin lymphoma and prognostic 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. Leuk Lymphoma 56:1271–1277PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Min M, Lin P, Lee MT et al (2015) Prognostic role of metabolic parameters of 18F-FDG PET-CT scan performed during radiation therapy in locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 42:1984–1994PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Ordu C, Selcuk NA, Akosman C et al (2015) Comparison of metabolic and anatomic response to chemotherapy based on PERCIST and RECIST in patients with advanced stage non-small cell lung cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 16:321–326PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Patriarca F, Carobolante F, Zamagni E et al (2015) The role of positron emission tomography with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose integrated with computed tomography in the evaluation of patients with multiple myeloma undergoing allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 21:1068–1073PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Rigacci L, Puccini B, Zinzani PL et al (2015) The prognostic value of positron emission tomography performed after two courses (INTERIM-PET) of standard therapy on treatment outcome in early stage Hodgkin lymphoma: a multicentric study by the fondazione italiana linfomi (FIL). Am J Hematol 90:499–503PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Sabet A, Meyer C, Aouf A et al (2015) Early post-treatment FDG PET predicts survival after 90Y microsphere radioembolization in liver-dominant metastatic colorectal cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 42:370–376PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Sachpekidis C, Larribere L, Pan L et al (2015) Predictive value of early 18F-FDG PET/CT studies for treatment response evaluation to ipilimumab in metastatic melanoma: preliminary results of an ongoing study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 42:386–396PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Sahani DV, Hayano K, Galluzzo A, Zhu AX (2015) Measuring treatment response to systemic therapy and predicting outcome in biliary tract cancer: comparing tumor size, volume, density, and metabolism. AJR Am J Roentgenol 204:776–781PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Schwartz DL, Harris J, Yao M et al (2015) Metabolic tumor volume as a prognostic imaging-based biomarker for head-and-neck cancer: pilot results from Radiation Therapy Oncology Group protocol 0522. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 91:721–729PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Simontacchi G, Filippi AR, Ciammella P et al (2015) Interim PET after two ABVD cycles in early-stage Hodgkin lymphoma: outcomes following the continuation of chemotherapy plus radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 92:1077–1083PubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Stefano A, Porcino N, Banna G et al (2015) Metabolic response assessment in non-small cell lung cancer patients after platinum-based therapy: a preliminary analysis. Curr Med Imaging Rev 11:218–227Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Suchorska B, Jansen NL, Linn J et al (2015) Biological tumor volume in 18FET-PET before radiochemotherapy correlates with survival in GBM. Neurology 84:710–719PubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Suleiman AA, Frechen S, Scheffler M et al (2015) Modeling tumor dynamics and overall survival in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer treated with erlotinib. J Thorac Oncol 10:84–92PubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Swinnen LJ, Li H, Quon A et al (2015) Response-adapted therapy for aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas based on early [18F] FDG-PET scanning: ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group study (E3404). Br J Haematol 170:56–65PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Tateishi U, Tatsumi M, Terauchi T et al (2015) Prognostic significance of metabolic tumor burden by positron emission tomography/computed tomography in patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Cancer Sci 106:186–193PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Toma-Dasu I, Uhrdin J, Lazzeroni M et al (2015) Evaluating tumor response of non-small cell lung cancer patients with 18F-fludeoxyglucose positron emission tomography: potential for treatment individualization. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 91:376–384PubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Vomackova K, Neoral C, Aujesky R et al (2015) The benefit of PET/CT in the diagnosis and treatment of esophageal cancer. Rozhl Chir 94:8–16PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Wang Y, Li G, Li W, He X, Xu L (2015) Radiofrequency ablation of advanced lung tumors: imaging features, local control, and follow-up protocol. Int J Clin Exp Med 8:18137–18143PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Wang J, Wong KK, Piert M et al (2015) Metabolic response assessment with 18F-FDG PET/CT: inter-method comparison and prognostic significance for patients with non-small cell lung cancer. J Radiat Oncol 4:249–256PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Wiedenmann NE, Bucher S, Hentschel M et al (2015) Serial [18F]-fluoromisonidazole PET during radiochemotherapy for locally advanced head and neck cancer and its correlation with outcome. Radiother Oncol 117:113–117PubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Wong AL, Lim JS, Sinha A et al (2015) Tumour pharmacodynamics and circulating cell free DNA in patients with refractory colorectal carcinoma treated with regorafenib. J Transl Med 13:57PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Yanagawa T, Saito K, Kiyohara H et al (2015) Monitoring bone and soft-tissue tumors after carbon-ion radiotherapy using 18F-FDG positron emission tomography: a retrospective cohort study. Radiat Oncol 10:259PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Yossi S, Krhili S, Muratet JP et al (2015) Early assessment of metabolic response by 18F-FDG PET during concomitant radiochemotherapy of non-small cell lung carcinoma is associated with survival: a retrospective single-center study. Clin Nucl Med 40:e215–e221PubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Zamagni E, Nanni C, Mancuso K et al (2015) PET/CT improves the definition of complete response and allows to detect otherwise unidentifiable skeletal progression in multiple myeloma. Clin Cancer Res 21:4384–4390PubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Zhang X, Fan W, Xia ZJ et al (2015) Use of subsequent PET/CT in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients in complete remission following primary therapy. Chin J Cancer 34:70–78PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Zhao F, Ding G, Huang W et al (2015) FDG-PET predicts pain response and local control in palliative radiotherapy with or without systemic treatment in patients with bone metastasis from non-small-cell lung cancer. Clin Lung Cancer 16:e111–e119PubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Altini C, Niccoli Asabella A, De Luca R et al (2015) Comparison of 18F-FDG PET/CT methods of analysis for predicting response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy in patients with locally advanced low rectal cancer. Abdom Imaging 40:1190–1202PubMedGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    An YY, Kim SH, Kang BJ, Lee AW (2015) Treatment response evaluation of breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and usefulness of the imaging parameters of MRI and PET/CT. J Korean Med Sci 30:808–815PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Barabasch A, Kraemer NA, Ciritsis A et al (2015) Diagnostic accuracy of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging versus positron emission tomography/computed tomography for early response assessment of liver metastases to Y90-radioembolization. Investig Radiol 50:409–415Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Cheng J, Wang Y, Mo M et al (2015) 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET/CT after two cycles of neoadjuvant therapy may predict response in HER2-negative, but not in HER2-positive breast cancer. Oncotarget 6:29388–29395PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Connolly RM, Leal JP, Goetz MP et al (2015) TBCRC 008: early change in 18F-FDG uptake on PET predicts response to preoperative systemic therapy in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative primary operable breast cancer. J Nucl Med 56:31–37PubMedGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Crippa F, Agresti R, Sandri M et al (2015) 18F-FLT PET/CT as an imaging tool for early prediction of pathological response in patients with locally advanced breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a pilot study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 42:818–830PubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Foukakis T, Lovrot J, Sandqvist P et al (2015) Gene expression profiling of sequential metastatic biopsies for biomarker discovery in breast cancer. Mol Oncol 9:1384–1391PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Fraioli F, Shankar A, Hargrave D et al (2015) 18F-Fluoroethylcholine (18F-Cho) PET/MRI functional parameters in pediatric astrocytic brain tumors. Clin Nucl Med 40:E40–E45PubMedGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Gavid M, Prevot-Bitot N, Timoschenko A et al (2015) [18F]-FDG PET-CT prediction of response to induction chemotherapy in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: preliminary findings. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis 132:3–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Groheux D, Majdoub M, Sanna A et al (2015) Early metabolic response to neoadjuvant treatment: FDG PET/CT criteria according to breast cancer subtype. Radiology 277:358–371PubMedGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Gunalp B, Oner AO, Ince S et al (2015) Evaluation of radiographic and metabolic changes in bone metastases in response to systemic therapy with 18FDG-PET/CT. Radiol Oncol 49:115–120PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Hagtvedt T, Seierstad T, Lund KV et al (2015) Diffusion-weighted MRI compared to FDG PET/CT for assessment of early treatment response in lymphoma. Acta Radiol 56:152–158PubMedGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Hartenbach M, Weber S, Albert NL et al (2015) Evaluating treatment response of radioembolization in intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma patients using 18F-fluoroethylcholine PET/CT. J Nucl Med 56:1661–1666PubMedGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Huh JW, Kwon SY, Lee JH, Kim HR (2015) Comparison of restaging accuracy of repeat FDG-PET/CT with pelvic MRI after preoperative chemoradiation in patients with rectal cancer. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 141:353–359PubMedGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Hulikal N, Gajjala SR, Kalawat TC et al (2015) Utility of [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG PET/CT) in the initial staging and response assessment of locally advanced breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Indian J Surg Oncol 6:330–336PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Humbert O, Riedinger JM, Charon-Barra C et al (2015) Identification of biomarkers including 18FDG-PET/CT for early prediction of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in triple-negative breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 21:5460–5468PubMedGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Ippolito D, Fior D, Trattenero C et al (2015) Combined value of apparent diffusion coefficient-standardized uptake value max in evaluation of post-treated locally advanced rectal cancer. World J Radiol 7:509–520PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Jo I, Zeon SK, Kim SH et al (2015) Correlation of primary tumor FDG uptake with clinicopathologic prognostic factors in invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast. Nucl Med Mol Imaging 49:19–25PubMedGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Kairemo K, Joensuu T (2015) Radium-223-dichloride in castration resistant metastatic prostate cancer-preliminary results of the response evaluation using F-18-fluoride PET/CT. Diagnostics (Basel) 5:413–427Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    Koc M, Kaya GC, Demir Y et al (2015) The value of liver-based standardized uptake value and other quantitative 18F-FDG PET-CT parameters in neoadjuvant therapy response in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer: correlation with histopathology. Nucl Med Commun 36:898–907PubMedGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Kostakoglu L, Duan F, Idowu MO et al (2015) A phase II study of 3′-deoxy-3'-18F-fluorothymidine PET in the assessment of early response of breast cancer to neoadjuvant chemotherapy: results from ACRIN 6688. J Nucl Med 56:1681–1689PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Kukar M, Alnaji RM, Jabi F et al (2015) Role of repeat 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography examination in predicting pathologic response following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for esophageal adenocarcinoma. JAMA Surg 150:555–562PubMedGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Martins EB, Chojniak R, Kowalski LP et al (2015) Diffusion-weighted MRI in the assessment of early treatment response in patients with squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck: comparison with morphological and PET/CT findings. PLoS One 10:e0140009PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Mayerhoefer ME, Karanikas G, Kletter K et al (2015) Evaluation of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for follow-up and treatment response assessment of lymphoma: results of an 18F-FDG-PET/CT-controlled prospective study in 64 patients. Clin Cancer Res 21:2506–2513PubMedGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    McKinley ET, Watchmaker JM, Chakravarthy AB et al (2015) [18F]-FLT PET to predict early response to neoadjuvant therapy in KRAS wild-type rectal cancer: a pilot study. Ann Nucl Med 29:535–542PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Pahk K, Kim S, Choe JG (2015) Early prediction of pathological complete response in luminal B type neoadjuvant chemotherapy-treated breast cancer patients: comparison between interim 18F-FDG PET/CT and MRI. Nucl Med Commun 36:887–891PubMedGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Puranik AD, Purandare NC, Shah S et al (2015) Role of FDG PET/CT in assessing response to targeted therapy in metastatic lung cancers: morphological versus metabolic criteria. Indian J Nucl Med 30:21–25PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Qin Z, Tang Y, Wang H et al (2015) Use of 18F-FDG-PET-CT for assessment of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in children with Wilms tumor. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 37:396–401PubMedGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    Rendl G, Rettenbacher L, Holzmannhofer J et al (2015) Assessment of response to neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy with F-18 FLT and F-18 FDG PET/CT in patients with rectal cancer. Ann Nucl Med 29:284–294PubMedGoogle Scholar
  126. 126.
    Sakai M, Sohda M, Miyazaki T et al (2015) Usefulness of 18f-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography for predicting the pathological response of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for T4 esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Hepatogastroenterology 62:898–901PubMedGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    Schuler MK, Platzek I, Beuthien-Baumann B et al (2015) 18F-FDG PET/MRI for therapy response assessment in sarcoma: comparison of PET and MR imaging results. Clin Imaging 39:866–870PubMedGoogle Scholar
  128. 128.
    Shimomura H, Sasahira T, Yamanaka Y et al (2015) [18F]fluoro-2-deoxyglucose-positron emission tomography for the assessment of histopathological response after preoperative chemoradiotherapy in advanced oral squamous cell carcinoma. Int J Clin Oncol 20:308–316PubMedGoogle Scholar
  129. 129.
    Slevin F, Subesinghe M, Ramasamy S et al (2015) Assessment of outcomes with delayed 18F-FDG PET-CT response assessment in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Br J Radiol 88:20140592PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  130. 130.
    Tokes T, Szentmartoni G, Torgyik L et al (2015) Complexity of response evaluation during primary systemic therapy of breast cancer: scoring systems and beyond-preliminary results. Anticancer Res 35:5063–5072PubMedGoogle Scholar
  131. 131.
    Tsuji K, Kishi S, Tsuchida T et al (2015) Evaluation of staging and early response to chemotherapy with whole-body diffusion-weighted MRI in malignant lymphoma patients: a comparison with FDG-PET/CT. J Magn Reson Imaging 41:1601–1607PubMedGoogle Scholar
  132. 132.
    Vouche M, Salem R, Miller FH et al (2015) Y90 radioembolization of colorectal cancer liver metastases: response assessment by contrast-enhanced computed tomography with or without PET-CT guidance. Clin Imaging 39:454–462PubMedGoogle Scholar
  133. 133.
    Zukotynski KA, Kim CK, Gerbaudo VH et al (2015) 18F-FDG-PET/CT and 18F-NaF-PET/CT in men with castrate-resistant prostate cancer. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 5:72–82PubMedGoogle Scholar
  134. 134.
    Alongi P, Zanoni L, Incerti E et al (2015) 18F-FDG PET/CT for early postradiotherapy assessment in solitary bone plasmacytomas. Clin Nucl Med 40:e399–e404PubMedGoogle Scholar
  135. 135.
    Baksh K, Prithviraj G, Kim Y et al (2015) Correlation between standardized uptake value in preneoadjuvant and postneoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and tumor regression grade in patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer. Am J Clin Oncol 22:22Google Scholar
  136. 136.
    Champion L, Lerebours F, Alberini JL et al (2015) 18F-FDG PET/CT to predict response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and prognosis in inflammatory breast cancer. J Nucl Med 56:1315–1321PubMedGoogle Scholar
  137. 137.
    Cook GJ, O’Brien ME, Siddique M et al (2015) Non-small cell lung cancer treated with erlotinib: heterogeneity of 18F-FDG uptake at PET-association with treatment response and prognosis. Radiology 276:883–893PubMedGoogle Scholar
  138. 138.
    De Giorgi U, Caroli P, Scarpi E et al (2015) 18F-Fluorocholine PET/CT for early response assessment in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treated with enzalutamide. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 42:1276–1283PubMedGoogle Scholar
  139. 139.
    Heijmen L, ter Voert EE, Oyen WJ et al (2015) Multimodality imaging to predict response to systemic treatment in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. PLoS One 10:e0120823PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  140. 140.
    Hooper CE, Lyburn ID, Searle J et al (2015) The south west area mesothelioma and Pemetrexed trial: a multicentre prospective observational study evaluating novel markers of chemotherapy response and prognostication. Br J Cancer 112:1175–1182PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  141. 141.
    Kim SH, Lee JH, Lee GJ et al (2015) Interpretation and prognostic value of positron emission tomography-computed tomography after induction chemotherapy with or without radiation in IIIA-N2 non-small cell lung cancer patients who receive curative surgery. Medicine (Baltimore) 94:e955Google Scholar
  142. 142.
    Leccisotti L, Gambacorta MA, de Waure C et al (2015) The predictive value of 18F-FDG PET/CT for assessing pathological response and survival in locally advanced rectal cancer after neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 42:657–666PubMedGoogle Scholar
  143. 143.
    Lin NU, Guo H, Yap JT et al (2015) Phase II study of lapatinib in combination with trastuzumab in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive metastatic breast cancer: clinical outcomes and predictive value of early [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography imaging (TBCRC 003). J Clin Oncol 33:2623–2631PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  144. 144.
    Matoba M, Tuji H, Shimode Y et al (2015) Lesion regression rate based on RECIST: prediction of treatment outcome in patients with head and neck cancer treated with chemoradiotherapy compared with FDG PET-CT. J Radiat Res (Tokyo) 56:553–560Google Scholar
  145. 145.
    Semrau S, Haderlein M, Schmidt D et al (2015) Single-cycle induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy or surgery in patients with head and neck cancer: what are the best predictors of remission and prognosis? Cancer 121:1214–1222PubMedGoogle Scholar
  146. 146.
    Algazi AP, Cha E, Ortiz-Urda SM et al (2015) The combination of axitinib followed by paclitaxel/carboplatin yields extended survival in advanced BRAF wild-type melanoma: results of a clinical/correlative prospective phase II clinical trial. Br J Cancer 112:1326–1331PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  147. 147.
    Bazzola L, Foroni C, Andreis D et al (2015) Combination of letrozole, metronomic cyclophosphamide and sorafenib is well-tolerated and shows activity in patients with primary breast cancer. Br J Cancer 112:52–60PubMedGoogle Scholar
  148. 148.
    Bengtsson T, Sanabria-Bohorquez SM, McCarthy TJ et al (2015) Statistically assigned response criteria in solid tumors (STARCIST). Cancer Imaging 15:9PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  149. 149.
    Czuczman MS, Kahanic S, Forero A et al (2015) Results of a phase II study of bendamustine and ofatumumab in untreated indolent B cell non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Ann Hematol 94:633–641PubMedGoogle Scholar
  150. 150.
    Horn KP, Yap JT, Agarwal N et al (2015) FDG and FLT-PET for early measurement of response to 37.5 mg daily sunitinib therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Cancer Imaging 15:15PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  151. 151.
    Nyflot MJ, Kruser TJ, Traynor AM et al (2015) Phase 1 trial of bevacizumab with concurrent chemoradiation therapy for squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck with exploratory functional imaging of tumor hypoxia, proliferation, and perfusion. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 91:942–951PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  152. 152.
    Oosting SF, Brouwers AH, van Es SC et al (2015) 89Zr-bevacizumab PET visualizes heterogeneous tracer accumulation in tumor lesions of renal cell carcinoma patients and differential effects of antiangiogenic treatment. J Nucl Med 56:63–69PubMedGoogle Scholar
  153. 153.
    Ostermeier A, McCarville MB, Navid F et al (2015) FDG PET/CT imaging of desmoplastic small round cell tumor: findings at staging, during treatment and at follow-up. Pediatr Radiol 45:1308–1315PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  154. 154.
    Owonikoko TK, Ramalingam SS, Miller DL et al (2015) A translational, pharmacodynamic, and pharmacokinetic phase IB clinical study of everolimus in resectable non-small cell lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res 21:1859–1868PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  155. 155.
    Subesinghe M, Scarsbrook AF, Sourbron S et al (2015) Alterations in anatomic and functional imaging parameters with repeated FDG PET-CT and MRI during radiotherapy for head and neck cancer: a pilot study. BMC Cancer 15:11Google Scholar
  156. 156.
    Yagi M, Froelich J, Arentsen L et al (2015) Longitudinal FDG-PET revealed regional functional heterogeneity of bone marrow, site-dependent response to treatment and correlation with hematological parameters. J Cancer 6:531–537PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  157. 157.
    Yu EY, Duan F, Muzi M et al (2015) Castration-resistant prostate cancer bone metastasis response measured by 18F-fluoride PET after treatment with dasatinib and correlation with progression-free survival: results from American College of Radiology Imaging Network 6687. J Nucl Med 56:354–360PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  158. 158.
    Cuccaro A, Annunziata S, Cupelli E et al (2016) CD68+ cell count, early evaluation with PET and plasma TARC levels predict response in Hodgkin lymphoma. Cancer Med 5:398–406PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  159. 159.
    Aide N, Lasnon C, Veit-Haibach P, Sera T, Sattler B, Boellaard R (2017) EANM/EARL harmonization strategies in PET quantification: from daily practice to multicentre oncological studies. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 44(Suppl 1):17–31PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  160. 160.
    Younes A, Hilden P, Coiffier B et al (2017) International Working Group consensus response evaluation criteria in lymphoma (RECIL 2017). Ann Oncol 28:1436–1447PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  161. 161.
    Ma B, King AD, Leung L et al (2017) Identifying an early indicator of drug efficacy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer-a prospective evaluation of circulating tumor cells, 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission tomography and the RECIST criteria. Ann Oncol 28:1576–1581PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  162. 162.
    Zucali PA, Lopci E, Ceresoli GL et al (2017) Prognostic and predictive role of [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) in patients with unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) treated with up-front pemetrexed-based chemotherapy. Cancer Med 6:2287–2296PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  163. 163.
    Montemurro M, Cioffi A, Dômont J et al (2018) Long-term outcome of dasatinib first-line treatment in gastrointestinal stromal tumor: a multicenter, 2-stage phase 2 trial (Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research 56/07). Cancer 124:1449–1454PubMedGoogle Scholar
  164. 164.
    Lopci E, Mascarin M, Piccardo A et al (2019) FDG PET in response evaluation of bulky masses in paediatric Hodgkin’s lymphoma (HL) patients enrolled in the Italian AIEOP-LH2004 trial. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 46:97–106PubMedGoogle Scholar
  165. 165.
    Letellier A, Johnson AC, Kit NH et al (2018) Uptake of Radium-223 dichloride and early [18F]NaF PET response are driven by baseline [18F]NaF parameters: a pilot study in castration-resistant prostate cancer patients. Mol Imaging Biol 20:482–491PubMedGoogle Scholar
  166. 166.
    Li L, Wei Y, Huang Y et al (2018) To explore a representative hypoxic parameter to predict the treatment response and prognosis obtained by [18F]FMISO-PET in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Mol Imaging Biol 20:1061–1067PubMedGoogle Scholar
  167. 167.
    Azad GK, Cousin F, Siddique M et al (2018) Does measurement of first-order and heterogeneity parameters improve response assessment of bone metastases in breast cancer compared to SUVmax in [18F]fluoride and [18F]FDG PET? Mol Imaging Biol.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11307-018-1262-3 PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  168. 168.
    Barrington SF, Qian W, Somer EJ et al (2010) Concordance between four European centres of PET reporting criteria designed for use in multicentre trials in Hodgkin lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 37:1824–1833PubMedGoogle Scholar
  169. 169.
    Follows GA, Ardeshna KM, Barrington SF et al (2014) Guidelines for the first line management of classical Hodgkin lymphoma. Br J Haematol 166:34–49PubMedGoogle Scholar
  170. 170.
    Radford J, Illidge T, Counsell N et al (2015) Results of a trial of PET-directed therapy for early-stage Hodgkin’s lymphoma. N Engl J Med 372:1598–1607PubMedGoogle Scholar
  171. 171.
    Adams HJ, Kwee TC (2016) RAPID trial demonstrates low positive predictive value of interim FDG-PET in early-stage Hodgkin lymphoma after three cycles of ABVD. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 38:165PubMedGoogle Scholar
  172. 172.
    Cysouw MCF, Kramer GM, Schoonmade LJ et al (2017) Impact of partial-volume correction in oncological PET studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 44:2105–2116PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  173. 173.
    Cysouw MCF, Golla SVS, Frings V et al (2019) Partial-volume correction in dynamic PET-CT: effect on tumor kinetic parameter estimation and validation of simplified metrics. EJNMMI Res 9:12PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  174. 174.
    Alavi A, Newberg AB, Souder E, Berlin JA (1993) Quantitative analysis of PET and MRI data in normal aging and Alzheimer’s disease: atrophy weighted total brain metabolism and absolute whole brain metabolism as reliable discriminators. J Nucl Med 34:1681–1687PubMedGoogle Scholar
  175. 175.
    Beheshti M, Saboury B, Mehta NN et al (2011) Detection and global quantification of cardiovascular molecular calcification by fluoro-18-fluoride positron emission tomography/computed tomography--a novel concept. Hell J Nucl Med 14:114–120PubMedGoogle Scholar
  176. 176.
    McKenney-Drake ML, Moghbel MC, Paydary K et al (2018) 18F-NaF and 18F-FDG as molecular probes in the evaluation of atherosclerosis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 45:2190–2200PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  177. 177.
    Alavi A, Werner TJ, Høilund-Carlsen PF, Zaidi H (2018) Correction for partial volume effect is a must, not a luxury, to fully exploit the potential of quantitative PET imaging in clinical oncology. Mol Imaging Biol 20:1–3PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© World Molecular Imaging Society 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Nuclear MedicineOdense University HospitalOdenseDenmark
  2. 2.Department of Clinical ResearchUniversity of Southern DenmarkOdenseDenmark
  3. 3.Institute of Medical Biometry and Statistics, Faculty of Medicine and Medical CenterUniversity of FreiburgFreiburgGermany
  4. 4.Department of Orthopaedics and TraumatologyUniversity Hospital BaselBaselSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations