458 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27325312)
1.
Lasnon C; Majdoub M; Lavigne B; Do P; Madelaine J; Visvikis D; Hatt M; Aide N
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging; 2016 Dec; 43(13):2324-2335. PubMed ID: 27325312
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Generating harmonized SUV within the EANM EARL accreditation program: software approach versus EARL-compliant reconstruction.
Lasnon C; Salomon T; Desmonts C; Dô P; Oulkhouir Y; Madelaine J; Aide N
Ann Nucl Med; 2017 Feb; 31(2):125-134. PubMed ID: 27812791
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Why harmonization is needed when using FDG PET/CT as a prognosticator: demonstration with EARL-compliant SUV as an independent prognostic factor in lung cancer.
Houdu B; Lasnon C; Licaj I; Thomas G; Do P; Guizard AV; Desmonts C; Aide N
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging; 2019 Feb; 46(2):421-428. PubMed ID: 30218317
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Impact of the EARL harmonization program on automatic delineation of metabolic active tumour volumes (MATVs).
Lasnon C; Enilorac B; Popotte H; Aide N
EJNMMI Res; 2017 Dec; 7(1):30. PubMed ID: 28361349
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Harmonizing SUVs in multicentre trials when using different generation PET systems: prospective validation in non-small cell lung cancer patients.
Lasnon C; Desmonts C; Quak E; Gervais R; Do P; Dubos-Arvis C; Aide N
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging; 2013 Jul; 40(7):985-96. PubMed ID: 23564036
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. The value of Bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction for improving lesion conspicuity of malignant lung tumors on
Kurita Y; Ichikawa Y; Nakanishi T; Tomita Y; Hasegawa D; Murashima S; Hirano T; Sakuma H
Ann Nucl Med; 2020 Apr; 34(4):272-279. PubMed ID: 32060780
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Does PET SUV Harmonization Affect PERCIST Response Classification?
Quak E; Le Roux PY; Lasnon C; Robin P; Hofman MS; Bourhis D; Callahan J; Binns DS; Desmonts C; Salaun PY; Hicks RJ; Aide N
J Nucl Med; 2016 Nov; 57(11):1699-1706. PubMed ID: 27283930
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Impact of time of flight and point spread function on quantitative parameters of lung lesions in
Huang K; Feng Y; Liang W; Li L
BMC Med Imaging; 2021 Nov; 21(1):169. PubMed ID: 34773998
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Clinical evaluation of (18)F-fludeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/CT using point spread function reconstruction for nodal staging of colorectal cancer.
Kawashima K; Kato K; Tomabechi M; Matsuo M; Otsuka K; Ishida K; Nakamura R; Ehara S
Br J Radiol; 2016 Jul; 89(1063):20150938. PubMed ID: 27146065
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Diagnostic performance of
Hotta M; Minamimoto R; Yano H; Gohda Y; Shuno Y
Cancer Imaging; 2018 Jan; 18(1):4. PubMed ID: 29378659
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Treatment response assessment in [
Dolci C; Spadavecchia C; Crivellaro C; De Ponti E; Todde S; Morzenti S; Turolla EA; Crespi A; Guerra L; Landoni C
Phys Med; 2019 Jan; 57():177-182. PubMed ID: 30738523
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Influence of PET reconstruction technique and matrix size on qualitative and quantitative assessment of lung lesions on [18F]-FDG-PET: A prospective study in 37 cancer patients.
Riegler G; Karanikas G; Rausch I; Hirtl A; El-Rabadi K; Marik W; Pivec C; Weber M; Prosch H; Mayerhoefer M
Eur J Radiol; 2017 May; 90():20-26. PubMed ID: 28583635
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Impact of point spread function reconstruction on thoracic lymph node staging with 18F-FDG PET/CT in non-small cell lung cancer.
Lasnon C; Hicks RJ; Beauregard JM; Milner A; Paciencia M; Guizard AV; Bardet S; Gervais R; Lemoel G; Zalcman G; Aide N
Clin Nucl Med; 2012 Oct; 37(10):971-6. PubMed ID: 22899197
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Using EQ·PET to reduce reconstruction-dependent variations in [
Vanhoutte M; Semah F; Lopes R; Jaillard A; Petyt G; Aziz AL; Lahousse H; Declerck J; Pasquier F; Spottiswoode B; Fahmi R
Phys Med Biol; 2019 Aug; 64(17):175002. PubMed ID: 31344691
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Feasibility of state of the art PET/CT systems performance harmonisation.
Kaalep A; Sera T; Rijnsdorp S; Yaqub M; Talsma A; Lodge MA; Boellaard R
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging; 2018 Jul; 45(8):1344-1361. PubMed ID: 29500480
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Intra-tumour 18F-FDG uptake heterogeneity decreases the reliability on target volume definition with positron emission tomography/computed tomography imaging.
Dong X; Wu P; Sun X; Li W; Wan H; Yu J; Xing L
J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol; 2015 Jun; 59(3):338-45. PubMed ID: 25708154
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Clinical evaluation of PET image reconstruction using a spatial resolution model.
Andersen FL; Klausen TL; Loft A; Beyer T; Holm S
Eur J Radiol; 2013 May; 82(5):862-9. PubMed ID: 23254158
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Changes of [
Liu Y; Gao MJ; Zhou J; Du F; Chen L; Huang ZK; Hu JB; Lou C
BMC Med Imaging; 2021 Sep; 21(1):133. PubMed ID: 34530768
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Influences of point-spread function and time-of-flight reconstructions on standardized uptake value of lymph node metastases in FDG-PET.
Akamatsu G; Mitsumoto K; Taniguchi T; Tsutsui Y; Baba S; Sasaki M
Eur J Radiol; 2014 Jan; 83(1):226-30. PubMed ID: 24144448
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Do clinical, histological or immunohistochemical primary tumour characteristics translate into different (18)F-FDG PET/CT volumetric and heterogeneity features in stage II/III breast cancer?
Groheux D; Majdoub M; Tixier F; Le Rest CC; Martineau A; Merlet P; Espié M; de Roquancourt A; Hindié E; Hatt M; Visvikis D
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging; 2015 Oct; 42(11):1682-1691. PubMed ID: 26140849
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
