PET/CT in therapy evaluation of patients with lung cancer

References

• Beyer T, Townsend D, Brun T, et al. A combined PET/CT scanner for clinical oncology. J Nucl Med 2000;41(8):1369-79
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gould MK, Donington J, Lynch WR, et al. Evaluation of individuals with pulmonary nodules: when is it lung cancer? Diagnosis and management of lung cancer, 3rd ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest 2013;143(5 Suppl):e93S-120S
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silvestri GA, Gonzalez AV, Jantz MA, et al. Methods for staging non-small cell lung cancer: Diagnosis and management of lung cancer, 3rd ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest 2013;143(5 Suppl):e211S-50S
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coleman M, Forman D, Bryant H, et al. Cancer survival in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the UK, 1995–2007 (the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership): an analysis of population-based cancer registry data. Lancet 2011;377:127-38
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stahel R, Peters S, Baas P, et al. Strategies for improving outcomes in NSCLC - a look to the future. Lung Cancer 2013;82(3):375-82
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bradbury P, Seymour L. Tumor shrinkage and objective response rates. Gold standard for oncology efficacy screening trials or an outdated end point? Cancer J 2009;15:354-60
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Erasmus JJ, Gladish GW, Broemeling L, et al. Interobserver and intraobserver variability in measurement of non-small cell carcinoma lung lesions: implications for assessment of tumor response. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:2574-82
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garon EB. Issues surrounding clinical trial endpoints in solid malignancies with a focus on metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer 2012;77:475-81
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Higashi K, Clavo A, Wahl R. Does FDG uptake measure proliferative activity of human cancer cells? In vitro comparison with DNA flow cytometry and tritiated thymidine uptake. J Nucl Med 1993;34:414-19
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larson SM, Schwartz LH. 18F-FDG PET as a candidate for “qualified biomarker”: functional assessment of treatment response in oncology. J Nucl Med 2006;47:901-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Juweid ME, Cheson BD. Positron-emission tomography and assessment of cancer therapy. N Engl J Med 2006;345:496-507
   Google Scholar
• Zhao B, Schwartz L, Larson SM. Imaging surrogates of tumor response to therapy: anatomic and functional biomarkers. J Nucl Med 2009;50:239-49
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Weber WA, Petersen V, Schmidt B, et al. Positron emission tomography in non-small cell lung cancer: prediction of response to chemotherapy by quantitative assessment of glucose use. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:2651-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacManus MP, Hicks RJ, Matthews JP, et al. Positron Emission Tomography is superior to computed tomography scanning for response-assessment after radical radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:1285-92
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vansteenkiste J, Fischer BM, Dooms C, Mortensen J. Positron-emission tomography in prognostic and therapeutic assessment of lung cancer: systematic review. Lancet Oncol 2004;5:531-40
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sargent DJ, Rubinstein L, Schwartz L, et al. Validation of novel imaging methodologies for use as cancer clinical trial end-points. Eur J Cancer 2009;45:290-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cao C, Zhu ZH, Yan TD, et al. Video-assisted thoracic surgery versus open thoracotomy for non-small-cell lung cancer: a propensity score analysis based on a multi-institutional registry. Eur J Cardio-thorac Surg 2013; doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezt406
   Google Scholar
• Arriagada R, Dunant A, Pignon JP, et al. Long-term results of the international adjuvant lung cancer trial evaluating adjuvant Cisplatin-based chemotherapy in resected lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010;28(1):35-42
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O'Rourke N, Macbeth F. Is concurrent chemoradiation the standard of care for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer? A review of guidelines and evidence. Clin Oncol 2010;22(5):347-55
   Google Scholar
• Azzoli CG, Temin S, Aliff T, et al. 2011 focused update of 2009 American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update on Chemotherapy for Stage IV Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer. J Clin Oncol 2011;29(28):3825-31
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldstraw P, Ball D, Jett JR, et al. Non-small-cell lung cancer. Lancet 2011;378(9804):1727-40
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soret M, Bacharach SL, Buvat I. Partial-volume effect in PET tumor imaging. J Nucl Med 2007;48(6):932-45
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mattar EH. Integrated PET/CT in imaging of non-small cell lung cancer. J Egypt Natl Canc Inst 2007;19(4):263-74
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Freudenberg LS, Rosenbaum SJ, Beyer T, et al. PET versus PET/CT dual-modality imaging in evaluation of lung cancer. Thorac Surg Clin 2010;20(1):25-30
   PubMedGoogle 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(1):181-200
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Antoch G, Freudenberg LS, Beyer T, et al. To enhance or not to enhance? 18F-FDG and CT contrast agents in dual-modality 18F-FDG PET/CT. J Nucl Med 2004;45(Suppl 1):56s-65s
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Behrendt FF, Temur Y, Verburg FA, et al. PET/CT in lung cancer: influence of contrast medium on quantitative and clinical assessment. Eur Radiol 2012;22(11):2458-64
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Basu S, Alavi A. Defining co-related parameters between ‘metabolic’ flare and ‘clinical’, ‘biochemical’, and ‘osteoblastic’ flare and establishing guidelines for assessing response to treatment in cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2007;34(4):441-3
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dehdashti F, Flanagan FL, Mortimer JE, et al. Positron emission tomographic assessment of “metabolic flare” to predict response of metastatic breast cancer to antiestrogen therapy. Eur J Nucl Med 1999;26(1):51-6
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Partha Ghosh M. Reproducible quantification in PET-CT: clinical relevance and technological approach. Siemens Medical Solutions, Inc., USA; 2012
   Google Scholar
• Nahmias C, Wahl LM. Reproducibility of standardized uptake value measurements determined by 18F-FDG PET in malignant tumors. J Nucl Med 2008;49(11):1804-8
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lee KH, Lee SH, Kim DW, et al. High fluorodeoxyglucose uptake on positron emission tomography in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer on platinum-based combination chemotherapy. Clin Cancer Res 2006;12(14 Pt 1):4232-6
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Visser EP, Boerman OC, Oyen WJ. SUV: from silly useless value to smart uptake value. J Nucl Med 2010;51(2):173-5
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA. From RECIST to PERCIST: Evolving Considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med 2009;50(Suppl 1):122S-50S
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Langen AJ, Vincent A, Velasquez LM, et al. Repeatability of 18F-FDG uptake measurements in tumors: a metaanalysis. J Nucl Med 2012;53(5):701-8
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vriens D, de Geus-Oei LF, van Laarhoven HW, et al. Evaluation of different normalization procedures for the calculation of the standardized uptake value in therapy response monitoring studies. Nucl Med Commun 2009;30(7):550-7
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sugawara Y, Zasadny KR, Neuhoff AW, Wahl RL. Reevaluation of the standardized uptake value for FDG: variations with body weight and methods for correction. Radiology 1999;213(2):521-5
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Prieto E, Dominguez-Prado I, Garcia-Velloso MJ, et al. Impact of time-of-flight and point-spread-function in SUV quantification for oncological PET. Clin Nucl Med 2013;38(2):103-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bai B, Bading J, Conti PS. Tumor quantification in clinical positron emission tomography. Theranostics 2013;3(10):787-801
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Werner-Wasik M, Nelson AD, Choi W, et al. What is the best way to contour lung tumors on PET scans? Multiobserver validation of a gradient-based method using a NSCLC digital PET phantom. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012;82(3):1164-71
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92(3):205-16
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Boqaerts J, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 2009;45:228-47
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Veldt AA, Lubberink M, Mathijssen RH, et al. Toward prediction of efficacy of chemotherapy: a proof of concept study in lung cancer patients using [(1)(1)C]docetaxel and positron emission tomography. Clin Cancer Res 2013;19(15):4163-73
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Velden FH, Cheebsumon P, Yaqub M, et al. Evaluation of a cumulative SUV-volume histogram method for parameterizing heterogeneous intratumoural FDG uptake in non-small cell lung cancer PET studies. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2011;38(9):1636-47
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Thie JA. Understanding the standardized uptake value, its methods, and implications for usage. J Nucl Med 2004;45(9):1431-4
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lindholm P, Minn H, Leskinen-Kallio S, et al. Influence of the blood glucose concentration on FDG uptake in cancer–a PET study. J Nucl Med 1993;34(1):1-6
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Boellaard R, Krak NC, Hoekstra OS, Lammertsma AA. Effects of noise, image resolution, and ROI definition on the accuracy of standard uptake values: a simulation study. J Nucl Med 2004;45(9):1519-27
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andersen FL, Klausen TL, Loft A, et al. Clinical evaluation of PET image reconstruction using a spatial resolution model. Eur J Radiol 2013;82(5):862-9
   PubMedGoogle 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(4):642-50
   PubMedGoogle 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(12):2320-33
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Boellaard R. Optimisation and harmonisation: two sides of the same coin? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2013;40(7):982-4
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• WHO WHO handbook for reporting results of cancer treatment. World Health Organisation Offset Publication; Geneva, Switzerland: 1979
   Google Scholar
• Young H, Baum R, Cremerius U, et al. 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. Eur J Cancer 1999;35(13):1773-82
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shankar LK, Hoffman JM, Bacharach S, et al. 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 2006;47(6):1059-66
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nakamoto Y, Zasadny KR, Minn H, Wahl RL. Reproducibility of common semi-quantitative parameters for evaluating lung cancer glucose metabolism with positron emission tomography using 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-D-glucose. Mol Imaging Biol 2002;4(2):171-8
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Larson SM, Erdi Y, Akhurst T, 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. Clin Positron Imaging 1999;2(3):159-71
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Skougaard K, Nielsen D, Jensen BV, Hendel HW. Comparison of EORTC criteria and PERCIST for PET/CT response evaluation of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with irinotecan and cetuximab. J Nucl Med 2013;54(7):1026-31
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Yap CS, Czernin J, Fishbein MC, et al. Evaluation of thoracic tumors with 18F-fluorothymidine and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography. Chest 2006;129(2):393-401
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brockenbrough JS, Souquet T, Morihara JK, et al. Tumor 3'-deoxy-3'-(18)F-fluorothymidine ((18)F-FLT) uptake by PET correlates with thymidine kinase 1 expression: static and kinetic analysis of (18)F-FLT PET studies in lung tumors. J Nucl Med 2011;52(8):1181-8
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Munk Jensen M, Erichsen KD, Johnbeck CB, et al. [18F]FLT and [18F]FDG PET for Non-invasive treatment monitoring of the nicotinamide phosphoribosyltransferase inhibitor APO866 in human xenografts. PLoS One 2013;8(1):e53410
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jensen MM, Erichsen KD, Bjorkling F, et al. Early detection of response to experimental chemotherapeutic Top216 with [18F]FLT and [18F]FDG PET in human ovary cancer xenografts in mice. PLoS One 2010;5(9):e12965
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Scheffler M, Zander T, Nogova L, et al. Prognostic impact of [18F]fluorothymidine and [18F]fluoro-D-glucose baseline uptakes in patients with lung cancer treated first-line with erlotinib. PLoS One 2013;8(1):e53081
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Saga T, Koizumi M, Inubushi M, et al. PET/CT with 3'-deoxy-3'-[18F]fluorothymidine for lung cancer patients receiving carbon-ion radiotherapy. Nucl Med Commun 2011;32(5):348-55
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Larson SM, Schoder H. New PET tracers for evaluation of solid tumor response to therapy. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2009;53(2):158-66
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kahraman D, Holstein A, Scheffler M, et al. Tumor lesion glycolysis and tumor lesion proliferation for response prediction and prognostic differentiation in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer treated with erlotinib. Clin Nucl Med 2012;37(11):1058-64
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mileshkin L, Hicks RJ, Hughes BG, et al. Changes in 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose and 18F-fluorodeoxythymidine positron emission tomography imaging in patients with non-small cell lung cancer treated with erlotinib. Clin Cancer Res 2011;17(10):3304-15
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Everitt S, Hicks RJ, Ball D, et al. Imaging cellular proliferation during chemo-radiotherapy: a pilot study of serial 18F-FLT positron emission tomography/computed tomography imaging for non-small-cell lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009;75(4):1098-104
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vera P, Bohn P, Edet-Sanson A, et al. Simultaneous positron emission tomography (PET) assessment of metabolism with (1)(8)F-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose (FDG), proliferation with (1)(8)F-fluoro-thymidine (FLT), and hypoxia with (1)(8)fluoro-misonidazole (F-miso) before and during radiotherapy in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC): a pilot study. Radiother Oncol 2011;98(1):109-16
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trinkaus ME, Blum R, Rischin D, et al. Imaging of hypoxia with 18F-FAZA PET in patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer treated with definitive chemoradiotherapy. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2013;57(4):475-81
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bollineni VR, Kerner GS, Pruim J, et al. PET imaging of tumor hypoxia using 18F-fluoroazomycin arabinoside in stage III-IV non-small cell lung cancer patients. J Nucl Med 2013;54(8):1175-80
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tachibana I, Nishimura Y, Shibata T, et al. A prospective clinical trial of tumor hypoxia imaging with 18F-fluoromisonidazole positron emission tomography and computed tomography (F-MISO PET/CT) before and during radiation therapy. J Radiat Res 2013;54(6):1078-84
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bourgeois M, Rajerison H, Guerard F, et al. Contribution of [64Cu]-ATSM PET in molecular imaging of tumour hypoxia compared to classical [18F]-MISO–a selected review. Nucl Med Rev Cent East Eur 2011;14(2):90-5
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hansen AE, Kristensen AT, Jorgensen JT, et al. (64)Cu-ATSM and (18)FDG PET uptake and (64)Cu-ATSM autoradiography in spontaneous canine tumors: comparison with pimonidazole hypoxia immunohistochemistry. Radiat Oncol 2012;7:89
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hansen AE, Kristensen AT, Law I, et al. Multimodality functional imaging of spontaneous canine tumors using 64Cu-ATSM and 18FDG PET/CT and dynamic contrast enhanced perfusion CT. Radiother Oncol 2012;102(3):424-8
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Grassi I, Nanni C, Cicoria G, et al. Usefulness of 64Cu-ATSM in head and neck cancer: a preliminary prospective study. Clin Nucl Med 2013;39(1):e59-63
   Google Scholar
• Beer AJ, Lorenzen S, Metz S, et al. Comparison of integrin alphaVbeta3 expression and glucose metabolism in primary and metastatic lesions in cancer patients: a PET study using 18F-galacto-RGD and 18F-FDG. J Nucl Med 2008;49(1):22-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oxboel J, Schjoeth-Eskesen C, El-Ali HH, et al. 64)Cu-NODAGA-c(RGDyK) is a promising new angiogenesis PET tracer: correlation between tumor uptake and integrin alpha(V)beta(3) expression in human neuroendocrine tumor xenografts. Int J Mol Imaging 2012;2012:379807
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Berghmans T, Paesmans M, Sculier JP. Prognostic factors in stage III non-small cell lung cancer: a review of conventional, metabolic and new biological variables. Ther Adv Med Oncol 2011;3(3):127-38
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Paesmans M, Berghmans T, Dusart M, et al. Primary tumor standardized uptake value measured on fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography is of prognostic value for survival in non-small cell lung cancer: update of a systematic review and meta-analysis by the European Lung Cancer Working Party for the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer Staging Project. J Thorac Oncol 2010;5(5):612-19
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lee HY, Lee KS, Park J, et al. Baseline SUVmax at PET-CT in stage IIIA non-small-cell lung cancer patients undergoing surgery after neoadjuvant therapy: prognostic implication focused on histopathologic subtypes. Acad Radiol 2012;19(4):440-5
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Liao S, Penney BC, Zhang H, et al. Prognostic value of the quantitative metabolic volumetric measurement on 18F-FDG PET/CT in Stage IV nonsurgical small-cell lung cancer. Acad Radiol 2012;19(1):69-77
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zaizen Y, Azuma K, Kurata S, et al. Prognostic significance of total lesion glycolysis in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer receiving chemotherapy. Eur J Radiol 2012;81(12):4179-84
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chen HH, Chiu NT, Su WC, et al. Prognostic value of whole-body total lesion glycolysis at pretreatment FDG PET/CT in non-small cell lung cancer. Radiology 2012;264(2):559-66
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liao S, Penney BC, Wroblewski K, et al. Prognostic value of metabolic tumor burden on 18F-FDG PET in nonsurgical patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2012;39(1):27-38
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang H, Wroblewski K, Liao S, et al. Prognostic value of metabolic tumor burden from (18)F-FDG PET in surgical patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. Acad Radiol 2013;20(1):32-40
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lee P, Bazan JG, Lavori PW, et al. Metabolic tumor volume is an independent prognostic factor in patients treated definitively for non-small-cell lung cancer. Clin Lung Cancer 2012;13(1):52-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moon SH, Cho SH, Park LC, et al. Metabolic response evaluated by 18F-FDG PET/CT as a potential screening tool in identifying a subgroup of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer for immediate maintenance therapy after first-line chemotherapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2013;40(7):1005-13
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Yoon DH, Baek S, Choi CM, et al. FDG-PET as a potential tool for selecting patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer who may be spared maintenance therapy after first-line chemotherapy. Clin Cancer Res 2011;17(15):5093-100
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Usmanij EA, Geus-Oei LF, Troost EG, et al. 18F-FDG PET early response evaluation of locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer treated with concomitant chemoradiotherapy. J Nucl Med 2013;54(9):1528-34
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mac Manus MP, Hicks RJ, Matthews JP, et al. Metabolic (FDG-PET) response after radical radiotherapy/chemoradiotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer correlates with patterns of failure. Lung Cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands) 2005;49(1):95-108
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weber WA, Petersen V, Schmidt B, et al. Positron emission tomography in non-small-cell lung cancer: prediction of response to chemotherapy by quantitative assessment of glucose use. J Clin Oncol 2003;21(14):2651-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nahmias C, Hanna WT, Wahl LM, et al. Time course of early response to chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer patients with 18F-FDG PET/CT. J Nucl Med 2007;48(5):744-51
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Novello S, Vavala T, Levra MG, et al. Early response to chemotherapy in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer assessed by [18F]-fluoro-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography and computed tomography. Clin Lung Cancer 2013;14(3):230-7
   PubMedGoogle 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(10):1592-8
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lee DH, Kim SK, Lee HY, et al. Early prediction of response to first-line therapy using integrated 18F-FDG PET/CT for patients with advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol 2009;4(7):816-21
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Patz EF Jr, Connolly J, Herndon J. Prognostic value of thoracic FDG PET imaging after treatment for non-small cell lung cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000;174(3):769-74
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tanvetyanon T, Eikman EA, Sommers E, et al. Computed tomography response, but not positron emission tomography scan response, predicts survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for resectable non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2008;26(28):4610-16
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zhang C, Liu J, Tong J, et al. 18F-FDG-PET evaluation of pathological tumour response to neoadjuvant therapy in patients with NSCLC. Nucl Med Commun 2013;34(1):71-7
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dooms C, Verbeken E, Stroobants S, et al. Prognostic stratification of stage IIIA-N2 non-small-cell lung cancer after induction chemotherapy: a model based on the combination of morphometric-pathologic response in mediastinal nodes and primary tumor response on serial 18-fluoro-2-deoxy-glucose positron emission tomography. J Clin Oncol 2008;26(7):1128-34
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lee HY, Lee HJ, Kim YT, et al. Value of combined interpretation of computed tomography response and positron emission tomography response for prediction of prognosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol 2010;5(4):497-503
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• De Leyn P, Stroobants S, De Wever W, et al. Prospective comparative study of integrated positron emission tomography-computed tomography scan compared with remediastinoscopy in the assessment of residual mediastinal lymph node disease after induction chemotherapy for mediastinoscopy-proven stage IIIA-N2 Non-small-cell lung cancer: a Leuven Lung Cancer Group Study. J Clin Oncol 2006;24(21):3333-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stigt JA, Oostdijk AH, Timmer PR, et al. Comparison of EUS-guided fine needle aspiration and integrated PET-CT in restaging after treatment for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer 2009;66(2):198-204
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rebollo-Aguirre AC, Ramos-Font C, Villegas Portero R, et al. Is FDG-PET suitable for evaluating neoadjuvant therapy in non-small cell lung cancer? Evidence with systematic review of the literature. J Surg Oncol 2010;101(6):486-94
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Port JL, Kent MS, Korst RJ, et al. Positron emission tomography scanning poorly predicts response to preoperative chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg 2004;77(1):254-9; discussion 2004: 259
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ohtsuka T, Nomori H, Ebihara A, et al. FDG-PET imaging for lymph node staging and pathologic tumor response after neoadjuvant treatment of non-small cell lung cancer. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2006;12(2):89-94
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cerfolio RJ, Bryant AS, Winokur TS, et al. Repeat FDG-PET after neoadjuvant therapy is a predictor of pathologic response in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg 2004;78(6):1903-9; discussion 2004: 1909
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eschmann SM, Friedel G, Paulsen F, et al. Repeat 18F-FDG PET for monitoring neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer 2007;55(2):165-71
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Poettgen C, Theegarten D, Eberhardt W, et al. Correlation of PET/CT findings and histopathology after neoadjuvant therapy in non-small cell lung cancer. Oncology 2007;73(5-6):316-23
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pottgen C, Levegrun S, Theegarten D, et al. Value of 18F-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography in non-small-cell lung cancer for prediction of pathologic response and times to relapse after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Clin Cancer Res 2006;12(1):97-106
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hellwig D, Graeter TP, Ukena D, et al. Value of F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography after induction therapy of locally advanced bronchogenic carcinoma. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2004;128(6):892-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collaud S, Lardinois D, Tischler V, et al. Significance of a new fluorodeoxyglucose-positive lesion on restaging positron emission tomography/computed tomography after induction therapy for non-small-cell lung cancer. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2012;41(3):612-16
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chen X, Liu Y, Roe OD, et al. Gefitinib or erlotinib as maintenance therapy in patients with advanced stage non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review. PLoS One 2013;8(3):e59314
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park EA, Lee HJ, Kim YT, et al. EGFR gene copy number in adenocarcinoma of the lung by FISH analysis: investigation of significantly related factors on CT, FDG-PET, and histopathology. Lung Cancer 2009;64(2):179-86
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ullrich RT, Zander T, Neumaier B, et al. Early detection of erlotinib treatment response in NSCLC by 3'-deoxy-3'-[F]-fluoro-L-thymidine ([F]FLT) positron emission tomography (PET). PLoS One 2008;3(12):e3908
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Su H, Bodenstein C, Dumont RA, et al. Monitoring tumor glucose utilization by positron emission tomography for the prediction of treatment response to epidermal growth factor receptor kinase inhibitors. Clin Cancer Res 2006;12(19):5659-67
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sunaga N, Oriuchi N, Kaira K, et al. Usefulness of FDG-PET for early prediction of the response to gefitinib in non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer 2008;59(2):203-10
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zander T, Scheffler M, Nogova L, et al. Early prediction of nonprogression in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer treated with erlotinib by using [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose and [(18)F]fluorothymidine positron emission tomography. J Clin Oncol 2011;29(13):1701-8
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kahraman D, Scheffler M, Zander T, et al. Quantitative analysis of response to treatment with erlotinib in advanced non-small cell lung cancer using 18F-FDG and 3'-deoxy-3'-18F-fluorothymidine PET. J Nucl Med 2011;52(12):1871-7
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Takahashi R, Hirata H, Tachibana I, et al. Early [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography at two days of gefitinib treatment predicts clinical outcome in patients with adenocarcinoma of the lung. Clin Cancer Res 2012;18(1):220-8
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Aukema TS, Kappers I, Olmos RA, et al. Is 18F-FDG PET/CT useful for the early prediction of histopathologic response to neoadjuvant erlotinib in patients with non-small cell lung cancer? J Nucl Med 2010;51(9):1344-8
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• O'Brien ME, Myerson JS, Coward JI, et al. A phase II study of (1)(8)F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET-CT in non-small cell lung cancer patients receiving erlotinib (Tarceva); objective and symptomatic responses at 6 and 12 weeks. Eur J Cancer 2012;48(1):68-74
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bengtsson T, Hicks RJ, Peterson A, Port RE. 18F-FDG PET as a surrogate biomarker in non-small cell lung cancer treated with erlotinib: newly identified lesions are more informative than standardized uptake value. J Nucl Med 2012;53(4):530-7
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sohn HJ, Yang YJ, Ryu JS, et al. [18F]Fluorothymidine positron emission tomography before and 7 days after gefitinib treatment predicts response in patients with advanced adenocarcinoma of the lung. Clin Cancer Res 2008;14(22):7423-9
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kobe C, Scheffler M, Holstein A, et al. Predictive value of early and late residual 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose and 18F-fluorothymidine uptake using different SUV measurements in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer treated with erlotinib. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2012;39(7):1117-27
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruben JD, Ball DL. The efficacy of PET staging for small-cell lung cancer: a systematic review and cost analysis in the Australian setting. J Thorac Oncol 2012;7(6):1015-20
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Meerbeeck JP, Fennell DA, De Ruysscher DK. Small-cell lung cancer. Lancet 2011;378(9804):1741-55
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Leest C, Smit EF, Baas J, et al. SUVmax during 18FDG-PET scanning in small cell lung cancer: similar information as in non-small cell lung cancer? Lung Cancer 2012;76(1):67-71
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee YJ, Cho A, Cho BC, et al. High tumor metabolic activity as measured by fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography is associated with poor prognosis in limited and extensive stage small-cell lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2009;15(7):2426-32
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oh JR, Seo JH, Chong A, et al. Whole-body metabolic tumour volume of 18F-FDG PET/CT improves the prediction of prognosis in small cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2012;39(6):925-35
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arslan N, Tuncel M, Kuzhan O, et al. Evaluation of outcome prediction and disease extension by quantitative 2-deoxy-2-[18F] fluoro-D-glucose with positron emission tomography in patients with small cell lung cancer. Ann Nucl Med 2011;25(6):406-13
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reymen B, Van Loon J, van Baardwijk A, et al. Total gross tumor volume is an independent prognostic factor in patients treated with selective nodal irradiation for stage I to III small cell lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2013;85(5):1319-24
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zhu D, Ma T, Niu Z, et al. Prognostic significance of metabolic parameters measured by (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in patients with small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer 2011;73(3):332-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Loon J, Offermann C, Ollers M, et al. Early CT and FDG-metabolic tumour volume changes show a significant correlation with survival in stage I-III small cell lung cancer: a hypothesis generating study. Radiother Oncol 2011;99(2):172-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yamamoto Y, Kameyama R, Murota M, et al. Early assessment of therapeutic response using FDG PET in small cell lung cancer. Mol Imaging Biol 2009;11(6):467-72
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fischer BM, Mortensen J, Langer SW, et al. PET/CT imaging in response evaluation of patients with small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands) 2006;54(1):41-9
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ziai D, Wagner T, El Badaoui A, et al. Therapy response evaluation with FDG-PET/CT in small cell lung cancer: a prognostic and comparison study of the PERCIST and EORTC criteria. Cancer Imaging 2013;13:73-80
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Buck AK, Herrmann K, Stargardt T, et al. Economic evaluation of PET and PET/CT in oncology: evidence and methodologic approaches. J Nucl Med 2010;51(3):401-12
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Acrin Protocol 6678. Available from: www.acrin.org/TabID/162/Default.aspx
   Google Scholar
• Zasadny KR, Wahl RL. Standardized uptake values of normal tissues at PET with 2-[fluorine-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose: variations with body weight and a method for correction. Radiology 1993;189(3):847-50
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Geworski L, Knoop BO, de Wit M, et al. Multicenter comparison of calibration and cross calibration of PET scanners. J Nucl Med 2002;43(5):635-9
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Harvie MN, Campbell IT, Thatcher N, Baildam A. Changes in body composition in men and women with advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) undergoing chemotherapy. J Hum Nutr Diet 2003;16(5):323-6
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lowe VJ, DeLong DM, Hoffman JM, Coleman RE. Optimum scanning protocol for FDG-PET evaluation of pulmonary malignancy. J Nucl Med 1995;36(5):883-7
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Erdi YE, Nehmeh SA, Pan T, et al. The CT motion quantitation of lung lesions and its impact on PET-measured SUVs. J Nucl Med 2004;45(8):1287-92
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaira K, Endo M, Asakura K, et al. Ratio of standardized uptake value on PET helps predict response and outcome after chemotherapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Ann Nucl Med 2010;24(10):697-705
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Decoster L, Schallier D, Everaert H, et al. Complete metabolic tumour response, assessed by 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (18FDG-PET), after induction chemotherapy predicts a favourable outcome in patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Lung Cancer 2008;62(1):55-61
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Na II, Byun BH, Kang HJ, et al. 18F-fluoro-2-deoxy-glucose uptake predicts clinical outcome in patients with gefitinib-treated non-small cell lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2008;14(7):2036-41
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Benz MR, Herrmann K, Walter F, et al. (18)F-FDG PET/CT for monitoring treatment responses to the epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor erlotinib. J Nucl Med 2011;52(11):1684-9
   PubMedGoogle Scholar