Efficacy of qualitative response assessment interpretation criteria at 18F-FDG PET-CT for predicting outcome in locally advanced cervical carcinoma treated with chemoradiotherapy

[1]  S. Sheikhbahaei,et al.  18F-FDG PET/CT: Therapy Response Assessment Interpretation (Hopkins Criteria) and Survival Outcomes in Lung Cancer Patients , 2016, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[2]  T. Yen,et al.  Utility of 18F-FDG PET/CT in patients with advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix receiving concurrent chemoradiotherapy: a parallel study of a prospective randomized trial , 2016, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[3]  A. Fyles,et al.  Follow-up for cervical cancer: a Program in Evidence-Based Care systematic review and clinical practice guideline update. , 2016, Current oncology.

[4]  S. Barrington,et al.  18F-FDG PET/CT to assess response and guide risk-stratified follow-up after chemoradiotherapy for oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma , 2016, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[5]  Per Nilsson,et al.  Qualitative interpretation of PET scans using a Likert scale to assess neck node response to radiotherapy in head and neck cancer , 2016, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[6]  J. Stoker,et al.  Monitoring treatment response in patients undergoing chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced uterine cervical cancer by additional diffusion‐weighted imaging: A systematic review , 2015, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[7]  L. Mileshkin,et al.  18F-FDG PET/CT following chemoradiation of uterine cervix cancer provides powerful prognostic stratification independent of HPV status: a prospective cohort of 105 women with mature survival data , 2015, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[8]  A. Scarsbrook,et al.  Assessment of outcomes with delayed (18)F-FDG PET-CT response assessment in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. , 2015, The British journal of radiology.

[9]  D. Rischin,et al.  Safety and cost analysis of an (18)FDG-PET-CT response based follow-up strategy for head and neck cancers treated with primary radiation or chemoradiation. , 2015, Oral oncology.

[10]  E. Sánchez,et al.  Response evaluation after chemoradiotherapy for advanced nodal disease in head and neck cancer using diffusion-weighted MRI and 18F-FDG-PET-CT. , 2015, Oral oncology.

[11]  R. Fisher,et al.  Role of imaging in the staging and response assessment of lymphoma: consensus of the International Conference on Malignant Lymphomas Imaging Working Group. , 2014, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[12]  R. Wahl,et al.  Head and Neck PET/CT: Therapy Response Interpretation Criteria (Hopkins Criteria)—Interreader Reliability, Accuracy, and Survival Outcomes , 2014, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[13]  A. Yapar,et al.  Treatment outcomes of patients with cervical cancer with complete metabolic responses after definitive chemoradiotherapy , 2014, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[14]  Kevin M. Brindle,et al.  Imaging Cell Death , 2014, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[15]  J. Choi,et al.  Clinical Investigation : Gynecologic Cancer Prognostic Significance of Tumor Response as Assessed by Sequential 18 F-Fluorodeoxyglucose-Positron Emission Tomography / Computed Tomography During Concurrent Chemoradiation Therapy for Cervical Cancer , 2013 .

[16]  Anthony Fyles,et al.  Trends in the utilization of brachytherapy in cervical cancer in the United States. , 2013, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[17]  Jacques Ferlay,et al.  GLOBOCAN 2012 v1.0, Cancer Incidence and Mortality Worldwide: IARC Cancer Base No. 11 [Internet] , 2013 .

[18]  C. Mathers,et al.  GLOBOCAN 2012 v1.0, Cancer Incidence and Mortality Worldwide: IARC CancerBase No. 11 [Internet]. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer , 2013 .

[19]  P. Grigsby,et al.  Changes in cervical cancer FDG uptake during chemoradiation and association with response. , 2013, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[20]  S. Beriwal,et al.  Complete metabolic response after definitive radiation therapy for cervical cancer: patterns and factors predicting for recurrence. , 2012, Gynecologic oncology.

[21]  H. Chung,et al.  Predictive role of post-treatment [18F]FDG PET/CT in patients with uterine cervical cancer. , 2012, European journal of radiology.

[22]  P. Grigsby,et al.  Clinical Investigation : Gynecologic Cancer Metabolic Response on Post-therapy FDG-PET Predicts Patterns of Failure After Radiotherapy for Cervical Cancer , 2012 .

[23]  B. Panizza,et al.  Results of a prospective study of positron emission tomography–directed management of residual nodal abnormalities in node‐positive head and neck cancer after definitive radiotherapy with or without systemic therapy , 2011, Head & neck.

[24]  S. Siva,et al.  Impact of post‐therapy positron emission tomography on prognostic stratification and surveillance after chemoradiotherapy for cervical cancer , 2011, Cancer.

[25]  J. Roodenburg,et al.  18F-FDG PET as a Routine Posttreatment Surveillance Tool in Oral and Oropharyngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A ProspectiveStudy , 2009, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[26]  C. Haie-meder,et al.  Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging in predicting residual disease in patients treated for stage IB2/II cervical carcinoma with chemoradiation therapy , 2008, Cancer.

[27]  P. Grigsby,et al.  Association of posttherapy positron emission tomography with tumor response and survival in cervical carcinoma. , 2007, JAMA.

[28]  Mitchell Morris,et al.  Pelvic irradiation with concurrent chemotherapy versus pelvic and para-aortic irradiation for high-risk cervical cancer: an update of radiation therapy oncology group trial (RTOG) 90-01. , 2004, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[29]  P. Eifel,et al.  Figo IIIB squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix: an analysis of prognostic factors emphasizing the balance between external beam and intracavitary radiation therapy. , 1999, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[30]  F. Landoni,et al.  Randomised study of radical surgery versus radiotherapy for stage Ib-IIa cervical cancer , 1997, The Lancet.

[31]  H. Bartsch,et al.  International Agency for Research on Cancer. , 1969, WHO chronicle.