Page 28 - Quantitative Imaging of Small Tumours with Positron Emission Tomography
P. 28

                                71. Bonomo P, Merlotti A, Olmetto E, et al. What is the prognostic impact of FDG PET in locally 1 advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma treated with concomitant chemo-radiotherapy? A systematic review and meta-analysis. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging. 2018;45:2122-2138. 72. Berghmans T, Dusart M, Paesmans M, et al. Primary tumor standardized uptake value (SUVmax) measured on fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) is of prognostic value for survival in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): a systematic review and meta-analysis (MA) by the European Lung Cancer Working Party for the IASLC Lung Cancer Staging Project. J Thorac Oncol. 2008;3:6-12. 73. Geus-Oei LF, Oyen WJ. Predictive and prognostic value of FDG-PET. Cancer Imaging. 2008;8:70-80. 74. Vesselle H, Turcotte E, Wiens L, et al. Relationship between non-small cell lung cancer fluorodeoxyglucose uptake at positron emission tomography and surgical stage with relevance to patient prognosis. Clin Cancer Res. 2004;10:4709-4716. 75. 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;47:1059-1066. 76. Anouan KJ, Lelandais B, Edet-Sanson A, et al. 18F-FDG-PET partial volume effect correction using a modified recovery coefficient approach based on functional volume and local contrast: physical validation and clinical feasibility in oncology. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;61:301-313. 77. Sollini M, Cozzi L, Antunovic L, Chiti A, Kirienko M. PET Radiomics in NSCLC: state of the art and a proposal for harmonization of methodology. Sci Rep. 2017;7:358. 78. Rousset O, Rahmim A, Alavi A, Zaidi H. Partial Volume Correction Strategies in PET. PET Clin. 2007;2:235-249. 79. Hoetjes NJ, van Velden FH, Hoekstra OS, et al. Partial volume correction strategies for quantitative FDG PET in oncology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:1679-1687. 80. Rousset OG, Ma Y, Evans AC. Correction for partial volume effects in PET: principle and validation. J Nucl Med. 1998;39:904-911. 81. Muller-Gartner HW, Links JM, Prince JL, et al. Measurement of radiotracer concentration in brain gray matter using positron emission tomography: MRI-based correction for partial volume effects. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 1992;12:571-583. 82. Hoffman EJ, Huang SC, Phelps ME. Quantitation in positron emission computed tomography: 1. Effect of object size. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1979;3:299-308. 83. Geworski L, Knoop BO, de Cabrejas ML, Knapp WH, Munz DL. Recovery correction for quantitation in emission tomography: a feasibility study. Eur J Nucl Med. 2000;27:161-169. 84. Avril N, Dose J, Janicke F, et al. Metabolic characterization of breast tumors with positron emission tomography using F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose. J Clin Oncol. 1996;14:1848-1857. 85. Teo BK, Seo Y, Bacharach SL, et al. Partial-volume correction in PET: validation of an iterative postreconstruction method with phantom and patient data. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:802-810. 86. Tohka J, Reilhac A. Deconvolution-based partial volume correction in Raclopride-PET and Monte Carlo comparison to MR-based method. Neuroimage. 2008;39:1570-1584. 87. Rahmim A, Qi J, Sossi V. Resolution modeling in PET imaging: theory, practice, benefits, and pitfalls. Med Phys. 2013;40:064301. 88. Kuhnert G, Boellaard R, Sterzer S, et al. Impact of PET/CT image reconstruction methods and liver uptake normalization strategies on quantitative image analysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:249-258. 89. Munk OL, Tolbod LP, Hansen SB, Bogsrud TV. Point-spread function reconstructed PET images of sub-centimeter lesions are not quantitative. EJNMMI Phys. 2017;4:5. 90. Kidera D, Kihara K, Akamatsu G, et al. The edge artifact in the point-spread function-based PET reconstruction at different sphere-to-background ratios of radioactivity. Ann Nucl Med. 2016;30:97- 103. 91. Rahmim A, Tang J. Noise propagation in resolution modeled PET imaging and its impact on detectability. Phys Med Biol. 2013;58:6945-6968. General introduction   27   


































































































   26   27   28   29   30