2019
DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.a6294
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

RESISTing the Need to Quantify: Putting Qualitative FDG-PET/CT Tumor Response Assessment Criteria into Daily Practice

Abstract: Tumor response assessments are essential to evaluate cancer treatment efficacy and prognosticate survival in patients with cancer. Response criteria have evolved over multiple decades, including many imaging modalities and measurement schema. Advances in FDG-PET/CT have led to tumor response criteria that harness the power of metabolic imaging. Qualitative PET/CT assessment schema are easy to apply clinically, are reproducible, and yield good prognostic results. We present 3 such criteria, namely, the Lugano c… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
5

Citation Types

0
9
0
1

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 55 publications
0
9
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Conventionally, therapy response monitoring relies on categorizing measurements of predefined changes in either tumor size (Eisenhauer et al 2009) or tumor FDG uptake by PET (Wahl et al 2009;Peacock et al 2019). However, given that tumor cell death is a desired endpoint of anticancer therapies, specific and robust in vivo measures are being intensively investigated preclinically and clinically (Smith and Smith 2012;Zhang et al 2019;Zhang et al 2020).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Conventionally, therapy response monitoring relies on categorizing measurements of predefined changes in either tumor size (Eisenhauer et al 2009) or tumor FDG uptake by PET (Wahl et al 2009;Peacock et al 2019). However, given that tumor cell death is a desired endpoint of anticancer therapies, specific and robust in vivo measures are being intensively investigated preclinically and clinically (Smith and Smith 2012;Zhang et al 2019;Zhang et al 2020).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Current methods for determining tumor responses are based on measuring changes in tumor dimensions using computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) [1] or measuring FDG avidity on 18 F-FDG positron emission tomography (PET)/(PET/CT) scans using PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (PERCIST) or tumor-speci c criteria [2,3]. Although there is no established role for FDG-PET in chemotherapy response monitoring of either lung or ovarian cancers [4,5], FDG-PET and SPECT studies in non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) patients after a rst cycle of platinum-based chemotherapy have been informative.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Current methods for determining tumor responses are based on measuring changes in tumor dimensions using computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and ultrasound according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) [1] or measuring FDG avidity on 18 F-FDG positron emission tomography (PET)/(PET/CT) scans using PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (PERCIST) or tumor-specific criteria [2,3]. Although there is no established role for FDG-PET in chemotherapy response monitoring of either lung or ovarian cancers [4,5], FDG-PET and SPECT studies in nonsmall cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) patients after a first cycle of platinum-based chemotherapy have been informative.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%