These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
3. Beyond FDG: Many Molecular Imaging Agents Are in Development. Brower V J Natl Cancer Inst; 2011 Jan; 103(1):13-5. PubMed ID: 21169540 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Colorectal cancer: translation of biological pathways into molecular imaging. Evangelista L; Marzola MC; Chondrogiannis S; Al-Nahhas A; Rubello D Nucl Med Commun; 2012 Jul; 33(7):780-2. PubMed ID: 22546875 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance FDG-PET/CT Working Group report. Frank R; Mol Imaging Biol; 2008; 10(6):305. PubMed ID: 18704590 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Radiologists urge FDA to accept PET-based tumor response criteria in clinical trials. Brower V J Natl Cancer Inst; 2011 Apr; 103(8):622-4. PubMed ID: 21474833 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. FDG and Beyond. De Ruysscher D; Haustermans K; Thorwarth D Recent Results Cancer Res; 2016; 198():163-73. PubMed ID: 27318686 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Molecular Imaging and Precision Medicine: PET/Computed Tomography and Therapy Response Assessment in Oncology. Sheikhbahaei S; Mena E; Pattanayak P; Taghipour M; Solnes LB; Subramaniam RM PET Clin; 2017 Jan; 12(1):105-118. PubMed ID: 27863562 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Positron emission tomography response criteria in solid tumours criteria for quantitative analysis of [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with integrated computed tomography for treatment response assessment in metastasised solid tumours: All that glitters is not gold. Willemsen AECAB; Vlenterie M; van Herpen CML; van Erp NP; van der Graaf WTA; de Geus-Oei LF; Oyen WJG Eur J Cancer; 2016 Mar; 56():54-58. PubMed ID: 26808297 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. FDG PET/CT imaging of NUT midline carcinoma. Niederkohr RD; Cameron MJ; French CA Clin Nucl Med; 2011 Sep; 36(9):e124-6. PubMed ID: 21825839 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Imaging surrogates of tumor response to therapy: anatomic and functional biomarkers. Zhao B; Schwartz LH; Larson SM J Nucl Med; 2009 Feb; 50(2):239-49. PubMed ID: 19164218 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Nuclear medicine and oncology. Lind P; Gallowitsch HJ Wien Med Wochenschr; 2012 Oct; 162(19-20):405-6. PubMed ID: 23099624 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Multiagency effort to focus on PET as biomarker. J Nucl Med; 2006 Apr; 47(4):11N. PubMed ID: 16673551 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography standardized uptake value in discriminating benign versus malignant lesions: an open and debated issue. Bertagna F; Giubbini R Nucl Med Commun; 2011 Jun; 32(6):542-3; author reply 543-4. PubMed ID: 21505288 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. ¹⁸F-Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography finds answers in cancer patients with increasing tumor markers and negative or equivocal conventional imaging modalities. Salem SS; Shahin MA Nucl Med Commun; 2012 Mar; 33(3):313-21. PubMed ID: 22237387 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Metabolic PET Imaging in Oncology. Sai KKS; Zachar Z; Bingham PM; Mintz A AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2017 Aug; 209(2):270-276. PubMed ID: 28463521 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Where do we draw the line? Contouring tumors on positron emission tomography/computed tomography. Macmanus MP; Hicks RJ Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2008 May; 71(1):2-4. PubMed ID: 18406881 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]