Assessment of Interobserver Reproducibility in Quantitative 18F-FDG PET and CT Measurements of Tumor Response to Therapy
暂无分享,去创建一个
Jeanne Kowalski | Shingo Baba | Katarzyna J. Macura | Richard L. Wahl | Heather A. Jacene | Karen M. Horton | Hua-Ling Tsai | S. Baba | R. Wahl | K. Horton | K. Macura | I. Kamel | J. Kowalski | H. Jacene | S. Leboulleux | Sophie Leboulleux | H. Tsai | Ihab Kamel | D. Chatzifotiadis | B. Goudarzi | Oleg Teytelbaum | Daniel Chatzifotiadis | Behnaz Goudarzi | Oleg Teytelbaum | J. Kowalski
[1] R. Wahl,et al. Insulin-induced hypoglycemia decreases uptake of 2-[F-18]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose into experimental mammary carcinoma. , 1997, Radiology.
[2] Claude Nahmias,et al. Reproducibility of Standardized Uptake Value Measurements Determined by 18F-FDG PET in Malignant Tumors , 2008, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.
[3] J. Coya,et al. PET/CT in lymphoma: prospective study of enhanced full-dose PET/CT versus unenhanced low-dose PET/CT. , 2006, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.
[4] J. R. Landis,et al. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.
[5] Adriaan A. Lammertsma,et al. Effects of ROI definition and reconstruction method on quantitative outcome and applicability in a response monitoring trial , 2005, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.
[6] A. Miller,et al. Reporting results of cancer treatment , 1981, Cancer.
[7] Yuji Nakamoto,et al. Reproducibility of common semi-quantitative parameters for evaluating lung cancer glucose metabolism with positron emission tomography using 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-D-glucose. , 2002, Molecular imaging and biology : MIB : the official publication of the Academy of Molecular Imaging.
[8] Mathias Prokop,et al. Pulmonary nodules detected at lung cancer screening: interobserver variability of semiautomated volume measurements. , 2006, Radiology.
[9] Thomas F Hany,et al. Non-Hodgkin lymphoma and Hodgkin disease: coregistered FDG PET and CT at staging and restaging--do we need contrast-enhanced CT? , 2004, Radiology.
[10] L. Washington,et al. Inherent variability of CT lung nodule measurements in vivo using semiautomated volumetric measurements. , 2006, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.
[11] Bernard J. Ransil,et al. Reproducibility of linear tumor measurements using PACS: comparison of caliper method with edge-tracing method , 2004, European Radiology.
[12] C. Catalano,et al. Volumetric evaluation of therapy response in patients with lung metastases. Preliminary results with a computer system (CAD) and comparison with unidimensional measurements , 2006, La radiologia medica.
[13] L. Schwartz,et al. Evaluation of tumor measurements in oncology: use of film-based and electronic techniques. , 2000, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
[14] Mithat Gonen,et al. Clinical implications of different image reconstruction parameters for interpretation of whole-body PET studies in cancer patients. , 2004, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.
[15] Jason P Fine,et al. Influence of reconstruction iterations on 18F-FDG PET/CT standardized uptake values. , 2005, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.
[16] M. van Glabbeke,et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors , 2000, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
[17] S. Zeger,et al. Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models , 1986 .
[18] M Schwaiger,et al. Reproducibility of metabolic measurements in malignant tumors using FDG PET. , 1999, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.
[19] I. Tannock,et al. Influence of measurement error on assessment of response to anticancer chemotherapy: proposal for new criteria of tumor response. , 1984, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
[20] R L Wahl,et al. Lung cancer: reproducibility of quantitative measurements for evaluating 2-[F-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose uptake at PET. , 1995, Radiology.
[21] W. Heindel,et al. Spiral CT of pulmonary nodules: interobserver variation in assessment of lesion size , 2000, European Radiology.
[22] Michael E Phelps,et al. Treatment Monitoring by 18F-FDG PET/CT in Patients with Sarcomas: Interobserver Variability of Quantitative Parameters in Treatment-Induced Changes in Histopathologically Responding and Nonresponding Tumors , 2008, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.
[23] L M Hamberg,et al. The dose uptake ratio as an index of glucose metabolism: useful parameter or oversimplification? , 1994, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.
[24] L. Broemeling,et al. Interobserver and Intraobserver Variability of Standardized Uptake Value Measurements in Non–small-cell Lung Cancer , 2006, Journal of thoracic imaging.
[25] F. d'Amore,et al. Early interim 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography is prognostically superior to international prognostic score in advanced-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma: a report from a joint Italian-Danish study. , 2007, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
[26] L. Schwartz,et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). , 2009, European journal of cancer.
[27] R L Wahl,et al. 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. , 1993, Radiology.
[28] R. Wahl,et al. From RECIST to PERCIST: Evolving Considerations for PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors , 2009, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.
[29] R L Wahl,et al. Reevaluation of the standardized uptake value for FDG: variations with body weight and methods for correction. , 1999, Radiology.
[30] M. Revel,et al. Are two-dimensional CT measurements of small noncalcified pulmonary nodules reliable? , 2004, Radiology.
[31] K. Herholz,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. , 1999, European journal of cancer.
[32] Alicia Y Toledano,et al. Interobserver reliability of computed tomography‐derived primary tumor volume measurement in patients with supraglottic carcinoma , 2005, Cancer.
[33] M. Schwaiger,et al. Positron emission tomography in non-small-cell lung cancer: prediction of response to chemotherapy by quantitative assessment of glucose use. , 2003, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
[34] M Van Glabbeke,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. , 2000, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
[35] Sigrid Stroobants,et al. Revised response criteria for malignant lymphoma. , 2007, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
[36] L. Broemeling,et al. Interobserver and intraobserver variability in measurement of non-small-cell carcinoma lung lesions: implications for assessment of tumor response. , 2003, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
[37] R L Wahl,et al. Metabolic monitoring of breast cancer chemohormonotherapy using positron emission tomography: initial evaluation. , 1993, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.