Quality assessment of positron emission tomography scans: recommendations for future multicentre trials

References

• van Elmpt W, Ollers M, Dingemans AM, et al. Response assessment using 18F-FDG PET early in the course of radiotherapy correlates with survival in advanced-stage non-small cell lung cancer. J Nucl Med. 2012;53:1514–1520.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Geus-Oei LF, van der Heijden HF, Visser EP, et al. Chemotherapy response evaluation with 18F-FDG PET in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:1592–1598.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dingemans AM, de Langen AJ, van den Boogaart V, et al. First-line erlotinib and bevacizumab in patients with locally advanced and/or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase II study including molecular imaging. Ann Oncol. 2011;22:559–566.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramanathan RK, Goldstein D, Korn RL, et al. Positron emission tomography response evaluation from a randomized phase III trial of weekly nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine versus gemcitabine alone for patients with metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas. Ann Oncol. 2016;27:648–653.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hendlisz A, Golfinopoulos V, Garcia C, et al. Serial FDG-PET/CT for early outcome prediction in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer undergoing chemotherapy. Ann Oncol. 2012;23:1687–1693.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Busk M, Munk OL, Jakobsen S, et al. FDG-PET reproducibility in tumor-bearing mice: comparing a traditional SUV approach with a tumor-to-brain tissue ratio approach. Acta Oncol. 2017;17:1–10.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boellaard R, O'doherty MJ, Weber WA, 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boellaard R, Delgado-Bolton R, Oyen WJ, et al. FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:328–354.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boellaard R, Oyen WJ, Hoekstra CJ, et al. The Netherlands protocol for standardisation and quantification of FDG whole body PET studies in multi-centre trials. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;35:2320–2333.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graham MM, Wahl RL, Hoffman JM, et al. Summary of the UPICT protocol for 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging in oncology clinical trials. J Nucl Med. 2015;56:955–961.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Jong EE, van Elmpt W, Leijenaar RT, et al. [18F]FDG PET/CT-based response assessment of stage IV non-small cell lung cancer treated with paclitaxel–carboplatin–bevacizumab with or without nitroglycerin patches. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44:8–16.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dingemans AM, Groen HJ, Herder GJ, et al. A randomized phase II study comparing paclitaxel–carboplatin–bevacizumab with or without nitroglycerin patches in patients with stage IV nonsquamous nonsmall-cell lung cancer: NVALT12 (NCT01171170)dagger. Ann Oncol. 2015;26:2286–2293.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herraiz JL, Sitek A. Sensitivity estimation in time-of-flight list-mode positron emission tomography. Med Phys. 2015;42:6690–6702.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, et al. From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(Suppl 1):122S–150S.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graham MM, Badawi RD, Wahl RL. Variations in PET/CT methodology for oncologic imaging at US academic medical centers: an imaging response assessment team survey. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:311–317.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beaulieu S, Kinahan P, Tseng J, et al. 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. 2003;44:1044–1050.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Binns DS, Pirzkall A, Yu W, et al. Compliance with PET acquisition protocols for therapeutic monitoring of erlotinib therapy in an international trial for patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:642–650.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hristova I, Boellaard R, Vogel W, et al. Retrospective quality control review of FDG scans in the imaging sub-study of PALETTE EORTC 62072/VEG110727: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:848–857.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhnert G, Boellaard R, Sterzer S, et al. Impact of PET/CT image reconstruction methods and liver uptake normalization strategies on quantitative image analysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:249–258.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Di Perri D, Lee JA, Bol A, et al. Evolution of [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose and [18F]fluoroazomycin arabinoside PET uptake distributions in lung tumours during radiation therapy. Acta Oncol. 2017;56:516–524.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larue RT, Defraene G, De Ruysscher D, et al. Quantitative radiomics studies for tissue characterization: a review of technology and methodological procedures. Br J Radiol. 2017;90:20160665.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carvalho S, Leijenaar RT, Velazquez ER, et al. Prognostic value of metabolic metrics extracted from baseline positron emission tomography images in non-small cell lung cancer. Acta Oncol. 2013;52:1398–1404.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar