Intended Versus Inferred Treatment After 18F-Fluoride PET Performed for Evaluation of Osseous Metastatic Disease in the National Oncologic PET Registry
暂无分享,去创建一个
Lucy Hanna | B. Hillner | I. Gareen | A. Shields | B. Siegel | F. Duan | R. Subramaniam | R. Makineni
[1] Michael J Fulham,et al. PET Changes Management and Improves Prognostic Stratification in Patients with Recurrent Colorectal Cancer: Results of a Multicenter Prospective Study , 2008, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.
[2] P. Choyke,et al. Prospective Study Evaluating Na18F PET/CT in Predicting Clinical Outcomes and Survival in Advanced Prostate Cancer , 2016, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.
[3] Vinay Prasad,et al. Surrogate endpoints in oncology: when are they acceptable for regulatory and clinical decisions, and are they currently overused? , 2017, BMC Medicine.
[4] U. Tateishi,et al. A meta-analysis of 18F-Fluoride positron emission tomography for assessment of metastatic bone tumor , 2010, Annals of nuclear medicine.
[5] David C. Miller,et al. Hospice use and high-intensity care in men dying of prostate cancer. , 2011, Archives of internal medicine.
[6] R. Coleman,et al. Relationship Between Cancer Type and Impact of PET and PET/CT on Intended Management: Findings of the National Oncologic PET Registry , 2008, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.
[7] Barry A. Siegel,et al. The impact of positron emission tomography (PET) on expected management during cancer treatment , 2009, Cancer.
[8] P. Gould. Medical isotope shortage reaches crisis level , 2009, Nature.
[9] Barry A Siegel,et al. Impact of positron emission tomography/computed tomography and positron emission tomography (PET) alone on expected management of patients with cancer: initial results from the National Oncologic PET Registry. , 2008, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
[10] Li Zhang,et al. Clinical Characteristics and Prognostic Factors in Bone Metastases from Lung Cancer , 2017, Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research.
[11] L. Jacques,et al. Decision Memo for Positron Emission Tomography (NaF-18) to Identify Bone Metastasis of Cancer (CAG-00065R) , 2010 .
[12] H. Sørensen,et al. Survival after bone metastasis by primary cancer type: a Danish population-based cohort study , 2017, BMJ Open.
[13] R. Coleman,et al. The National Oncologic PET Registry (NOPR): Design and Analysis Plan , 2007, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.
[14] S Ted Treves,et al. Skeletal PET with 18F-Fluoride: Applying New Technology to an Old Tracer* , 2007, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.
[15] R. Simes,et al. Using patient management as a surrogate for patient health outcomes in diagnostic test evaluation , 2012, BMC Medical Research Methodology.
[16] K. Pritchard,et al. F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission tomography-computed tomography to diagnose recurrent cancer , 2015 .
[17] R. Coleman,et al. The National Oncologic PET Registry: expanded medicare coverage for PET under coverage with evidence development. , 2007, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.
[18] F. Kahl,et al. 3D skeletal uptake of 18F sodium fluoride in PET/CT images is associated with overall survival in patients with prostate cancer , 2017, EJNMMI Research.
[19] R. Coleman,et al. Impact of 18F-Fluoride PET in Patients with Known Prostate Cancer: Initial Results from the National Oncologic PET Registry , 2014, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.
[20] A. Scott,et al. PET Changes Management and Improves Prognostic Stratification in Patients with Head and Neck Cancer: Results of a Multicenter Prospective Study , 2008, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.
[21] Quan-Yong Luo,et al. Performance of 18F-Fluoride PET or PET/CT for the Detection of Bone Metastases: A Meta-analysis , 2015, Clinical nuclear medicine.
[22] Jens Eickhoff,et al. Quantitative Assessment of Early [18F]Sodium Fluoride Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography Response to Treatment in Men With Metastatic Prostate Cancer to Bone. , 2017, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
[23] Jennifer L. Lund,et al. Comparison of SEER Treatment Data With Medicare Claims , 2016, Medical care.
[24] S. Tunis,et al. The National Oncologic PET Registry: lessons learned for coverage with evidence development. , 2009, Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR.
[25] P. Fox,et al. Prognostic Factors in Patients Treated with 223Ra: The Role of Skeletal Tumor Burden on Baseline 18F-Fluoride PET/CT in Predicting Overall Survival , 2015, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.
[26] Lucy Hanna,et al. 18F-Fluoride PET Used for Treatment Monitoring of Systemic Cancer Therapy: Results from the National Oncologic PET Registry , 2015, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.
[27] Vincent Mor,et al. Change in end-of-life care for Medicare beneficiaries: site of death, place of care, and health care transitions in 2000, 2005, and 2009. , 2013, JAMA.
[28] A. Sasse,et al. 18F-Fluoride PET/CT tumor burden quantification predicts survival in breast cancer , 2017, Oncotarget.
[29] R. Coleman,et al. Impact of 18F-Fluoride PET on Intended Management of Patients with Cancers Other Than Prostate Cancer: Results from the National Oncologic PET Registry , 2014, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.
[30] Lucy Hanna,et al. Intended Versus Inferred Care After PET Performed for Initial Staging in the National Oncologic PET Registry , 2013, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.
[31] Lucy Hanna,et al. Intended Versus Inferred Management After PET For Cancer Restaging: Analysis of Medicare Claims Linked to a Coverage With Evidence Development Registry , 2013, Medical care.
[32] M. Levine,et al. Registries that show efficacy: good, but not good enough. , 2008, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.