147 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28560574)
1. EORTC PET response criteria are more influenced by reconstruction inconsistencies than PERCIST but both benefit from the EARL harmonization program.
Lasnon C; Quak E; Le Roux PY; Robin P; Hofman MS; Bourhis D; Callahan J; Binns DS; Desmonts C; Salaun PY; Hicks RJ; Aide N
EJNMMI Phys; 2017 Dec; 4(1):17. PubMed ID: 28560574
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. Harmonizing FDG PET quantification while maintaining optimal lesion detection: prospective multicentre validation in 517 oncology patients.
Quak E; Le Roux PY; Hofman MS; Robin P; Bourhis D; Callahan J; Binns D; Desmonts C; Salaun PY; Hicks RJ; Aide N
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging; 2015 Dec; 42(13):2072-82. PubMed ID: 26219870
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. SUV Harmonization Between Different Hybrid PET/CT Systems.
Rubello D; Colletti PM
Clin Nucl Med; 2018 Nov; 43(11):811-814. PubMed ID: 30199381
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10.
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]
11. Impact of PET reconstruction protocols on quantification of lesions that fulfil the PERCIST lesion inclusion criteria.
Devriese J; Beels L; Maes A; Van de Wiele C; Pottel H
EJNMMI Phys; 2018 Dec; 5(1):35. PubMed ID: 30523429
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. How to harmonize SUVs obtained by hybrid PET/CT scanners with and without point spread function correction.
Ferretti A; Chondrogiannis S; Rampin L; Bellan E; Marzola MC; Grassetto G; Gusella S; Maffione AM; Gava M; Rubello D
Phys Med Biol; 2018 Nov; 63(23):235010. PubMed ID: 30474620
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Comparative analysis of different response criteria at early phase after PD-1 blockade in non-small lung cancer.
Kaira K; Yamaguchi O; Naruse I; Umeda Y; Honda T; Watanabe S; Ichikawa K; Yanagisawa S; Kasahara N; Higuchi T; Hashimoto K; Miura Y; Shiono A; Mouri A; Imai H; Iizuka K; Ishizuka T; Minato K; Suda S; Kagamu H; Mori K; Seki N; Kuji I
Cancer Imaging; 2023 Mar; 23(1):23. PubMed ID: 36859341
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Digital PET compliance to EARL accreditation specifications.
Koopman D; Groot Koerkamp M; Jager PL; Arkies H; Knollema S; Slump CH; Sanches PG; van Dalen JA
EJNMMI Phys; 2017 Dec; 4(1):9. PubMed ID: 28144857
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Impact of point spread function modelling and time of flight on FDG uptake measurements in lung lesions using alternative filtering strategies.
Armstrong IS; Kelly MD; Williams HA; Matthews JC
EJNMMI Phys; 2014 Dec; 1(1):99. PubMed ID: 26501457
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. EANM/EARL harmonization strategies in PET quantification: from daily practice to multicentre oncological studies.
Aide N; Lasnon C; Veit-Haibach P; Sera T; Sattler B; Boellaard R
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging; 2017 Aug; 44(Suppl 1):17-31. PubMed ID: 28623376
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The association of tumor-to-background ratios and SUVmax deviations related to point spread function and time-of-flight F18-FDG-PET/CT reconstruction in colorectal liver metastases.
Rogasch JM; Steffen IG; Hofheinz F; Großer OS; Furth C; Mohnike K; Hass P; Walke M; Apostolova I; Amthauer H
EJNMMI Res; 2015; 5():31. PubMed ID: 25992306
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Clinical evaluation of whole-body oncologic PET with time-of-flight and point-spread function for the hybrid PET/MR system.
Shang K; Cui B; Ma J; Shuai D; Liang Z; Jansen F; Zhou Y; Lu J; Zhao G
Eur J Radiol; 2017 Aug; 93():70-75. PubMed ID: 28668434
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20.
Fledelius J; Winther-Larsen A; Khalil AA; Bylov CM; Hjorthaug K; Bertelsen A; Frøkiær J; Meldgaard P
J Nucl Med; 2017 Dec; 58(12):1931-1937. PubMed ID: 28490472
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
