Multicenter study of quantitative PET system harmonization using NIST-traceable 68Ge/68Ga cross-calibration kit.

[1]  Marc Kachelriess,et al.  Procedure guideline for tumor imaging with 18F-FDG PET/CT 1.0. , 2006, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[2]  M. Schultz,et al.  Radionuclide calibrator measurements of (18)F in a 3ml plastic syringe. , 2008, Applied radiation and isotopes : including data, instrumentation and methods for use in agriculture, industry and medicine.

[3]  R. Wahl,et al.  From RECIST to PERCIST: Evolving Considerations for PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors , 2009, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[4]  R. Boellaard.  Standards for PET Image Acquisition and Quantitative Data Analysis , 2009, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[5]  Wim J. G. Oyen,et al.  Methodological considerations in quantification of oncological FDG PET studies , 2009, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[6]  Paul Kinahan,et al.  Multicenter comparison of dose calibrator accuracy for PET imaging using a standardized source , 2009 .

[7]  Joel S. Karp,et al.  Qualification of PET Scanners for Use in Multicenter Cancer Clinical Trials: The American College of Radiology Imaging Network Experience , 2009, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[8]  Paul Kinahan,et al.  Positron emission tomography-computed tomography standardized uptake values in clinical practice and assessing response to therapy. , 2010, Seminars in ultrasound, CT, and MR.

[9]  Brian E. Zimmerman,et al.  Development of a Traceable Calibration Methodology for Solid 68Ge/68Ga Sources Used as a Calibration Surrogate for 18F in Radionuclide Activity Calibrators , 2010, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[10]  Paul Kinahan,et al.  Instrumentation factors affecting variance and bias of quantifying tracer uptake with PET/CT. , 2010, Medical physics.

[11]  T. Turkington,et al.  A systematic review of the factors affecting accuracy of SUV measurements. , 2010, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[12]  R. Boellaard.  Need for Standardization of 18F-FDG PET/CT for Treatment Response Assessments , 2011, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[13]  Catherine M. Lockhart,et al.  Quantifying and Reducing the Effect of Calibration Error on Variability of PET/CT Standardized Uptake Value Measurements , 2011, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[14]  T. Beyer,et al.  Variations in Clinical PET/CT Operations: Results of an International Survey of Active PET/CT Users , 2011, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[15]  Paul Kinahan,et al.  Early experiences in establishing a regional quantitative imaging network for PET/CT clinical trials. , 2012, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[16]  Ronald Boellaard,et al.  Mutatis Mutandis: Harmonize the Standard! , 2012, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[17]  Paul Kinahan,et al.  Evaluation of strategies towards harmonization of FDG PET/CT studies in multicentre trials: comparison of scanner validation phantoms and data analysis procedures , 2013, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[18]  B. Zimmerman.  Current status and future needs for standards of radionuclides used in positron emission tomography. , 2013, Applied radiation and isotopes : including data, instrumentation and methods for use in agriculture, industry and medicine.

[19]  A. Martineau,et al.  Calibration Test of PET Scanners in a Multi-Centre Clinical Trial on Breast Cancer Therapy Monitoring Using 18F-FLT , 2013, PloS one.

[20]  K. Miwa,et al.  Validation of novel calibration scheme with traceable point-like 22Na sources on six types of PET scanners , 2013, Annals of Nuclear Medicine.

[21]  Darrin Byrd,et al.  Biases in Multicenter Longitudinal PET Standardized Uptake Value Measurements. , 2014, Translational oncology.

[22]  Eric J. W. Visser,et al.  FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0 , 2014, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[23]  M. Senda,et al.  Japanese guideline for the oncology FDG-PET/CT data acquisition protocol: synopsis of Version 2.0 , 2014, Annals of Nuclear Medicine.

[24]  R Matheoud,et al.  Performance comparison of two resolution modeling PET reconstruction algorithms in terms of physical figures of merit used in quantitative imaging. , 2015, Physica medica : PM : an international journal devoted to the applications of physics to medicine and biology : official journal of the Italian Association of Biomedical Physics.

[25]  Ronald Boellaard,et al.  The engagement of FDG PET/CT image quality and harmonized quantification: from competitive to complementary , 2015, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[26]  D. Binns,et al.  Harmonizing FDG PET quantification while maintaining optimal lesion detection: prospective multicentre validation in 517 oncology patients , 2015, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[27]  B. Zimmerman,et al.  Impact of Recent Change in the National Institute of Standards and Technology Standard for 18F on the Relative Response of 68Ge-Based Mock Syringe Dose Calibrator Standards , 2015, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[28]  Xin Yang,et al.  The use of noise equivalent count rate and the NEMA phantom for PET image quality evaluation. , 2015, Physica medica : PM : an international journal devoted to the applications of physics to medicine and biology : official journal of the Italian Association of Biomedical Physics.

[29]  Paul Kinahan,et al.  Summary of the UPICT Protocol for 18F-FDG PET/CT Imaging in Oncology Clinical Trials , 2015, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[30]  Xiao Jin,et al.  Quantitative comparison of OSEM and penalized likelihood image reconstruction using relative difference penalties for clinical PET , 2015, Physics in medicine and biology.

[31]  P. Christian,et al.  Quantitative PET/CT Scanner Performance Characterization Based Upon the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Clinical Trials Network Oncology Clinical Simulator Phantom , 2015, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[32]  J. S. Karp,et al.  Recent developments in time-of-flight PET , 2016, EJNMMI Physics.

[33]  Nicolas Aide,et al.  Generating harmonized SUV within the EANM EARL accreditation program: software approach versus EARL-compliant reconstruction , 2017, Annals of Nuclear Medicine.

[34]  Stephane Chauvie,et al.  The (68)Ge phantom-based FDG-PET site qualification program for clinical trials adopted by FIL (Italian Foundation on Lymphoma). , 2016, Physica medica : PM : an international journal devoted to the applications of physics to medicine and biology : official journal of the Italian Association of Biomedical Physics.

[35]  Darrin W. Byrd,et al.  Evaluation of Cross-Calibrated 68Ge/68Ga Phantoms for Assessing PET/CT Measurement Bias in Oncology Imaging for Single- and Multicenter Trials , 2016, Tomography.

[36]  W. Oyen,et al.  EANM/EARL FDG-PET/CT accreditation - summary results from the first 200 accredited imaging systems , 2017, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[37]  M. Lodge.  Repeatability of SUV in Oncologic 18F-FDG PET , 2017, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[38]  M. Daube-Witherspoon,et al.  Validation of phantom‐based harmonization for patient harmonization , 2017, Medical physics.

[39]  Janet S. Reddin,et al.  Qualification of National Cancer Institute–Designated Cancer Centers for Quantitative PET/CT Imaging in Clinical Trials , 2017, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[40]  James F. Gimpel,et al.  Performance Observations of Scanner Qualification of NCI-Designated Cancer Centers: Results From the Centers of Quantitative Imaging Excellence (CQIE) Program. , 2017, Academic radiology.

[41]  R. Boellaard,et al.  EANM/EARL harmonization strategies in PET quantification: from daily practice to multicentre oncological studies , 2017, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[42]  T. Turkington,et al.  Comparison of Bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction versus OS-EM for characterization of small pulmonary nodules in oncologic PET/CT , 2017, Annals of Nuclear Medicine.

[43]  Ciprian Catana,et al.  Measuring temporal stability of positron emission tomography standardized uptake value bias using long-lived sources in a multicenter network , 2018, Journal of medical imaging.