134 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28676945)
1. Verification of the tumor volume delineation method using a fixed threshold of peak standardized uptake value.
Koyama K; Mitsumoto T; Shiraishi T; Tsuda K; Nishiyama A; Inoue K; Yoshikawa K; Hatano K; Kubota K; Fukushi M
Radiol Phys Technol; 2017 Sep; 10(3):311-320. PubMed ID: 28676945
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3.
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]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. Tumor volume-adapted SUV
Mosleh-Shirazi MA; Nasiri-Feshani Z; Ghafarian P; Alavi M; Haddadi G; Ketabi A
Jpn J Radiol; 2021 Aug; 39(8):811-823. PubMed ID: 33880686
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Evaluation and Optimization of a New PET Reconstruction Algorithm, Bayesian Penalized Likelihood Reconstruction, for Lung Cancer Assessment According to Lesion Size.
Otani T; Hosono M; Kanagaki M; Onishi Y; Matsubara N; Kawabata K; Kimura H
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2019 Aug; 213(2):W50-W56. PubMed ID: 30995096
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. The influence of different signal-to-background ratios on spatial resolution and F18-FDG-PET quantification using point spread function and time-of-flight reconstruction.
Rogasch JM; Hofheinz F; Lougovski A; Furth C; Ruf J; Großer OS; Mohnike K; Hass P; Walke M; Amthauer H; Steffen IG
EJNMMI Phys; 2014 Dec; 1(1):12. PubMed ID: 26501454
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. Optimization of PET reconstruction algorithm, SUV thresholding algorithm and PET acquisition time in clinical 11C-acetate PET/CT.
Strandberg S; Hashemi A; Axelsson J; Riklund K
PLoS One; 2018; 13(12):e0209169. PubMed ID: 30543705
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Interobserver agreement of qualitative analysis and tumor delineation of 18F-fluoromisonidazole and 3'-deoxy-3'-18F-fluorothymidine PET images in lung cancer.
Thureau S; Chaumet-Riffaud P; Modzelewski R; Fernandez P; Tessonnier L; Vervueren L; Cachin F; Berriolo-Riedinger A; Olivier P; Kolesnikov-Gauthier H; Blagosklonov O; Bridji B; Devillers A; Collombier L; Courbon F; Gremillet E; Houzard C; Caignon JM; Roux J; Aide N; Brenot-Rossi I; Doyeux K; Dubray B; Vera P
J Nucl Med; 2013 Sep; 54(9):1543-50. PubMed ID: 23918733
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Brain PET imaging optimization with time of flight and point spread function modelling.
Prieto E; Martí-Climent JM; Morán V; Sancho L; Barbés B; Arbizu J; Richter JA
Phys Med; 2015 Dec; 31(8):948-955. PubMed ID: 26249138
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. 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]
18. Improvement in PET/CT image quality with a combination of point-spread function and time-of-flight in relation to reconstruction parameters.
Akamatsu G; Ishikawa K; Mitsumoto K; Taniguchi T; Ohya N; Baba S; Abe K; Sasaki M
J Nucl Med; 2012 Nov; 53(11):1716-22. PubMed ID: 22952340
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Impact of Point-Spread Function Modeling on PET Image Quality in Integrated PET/MR Hybrid Imaging.
Aklan B; Oehmigen M; Beiderwellen K; Ruhlmann M; Paulus DH; Jakoby BW; Ritt P; Quick HH
J Nucl Med; 2016 Jan; 57(1):78-84. PubMed ID: 26471697
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. [Influence of Reconstruction FOV and Matrix Size on the Quantitative Accuracy of FDG-PET: Comparison between OSEM and Bayesian Penalized Likelihood].
Mikami S; Nakamura F; Nakamura A; Torizuka T
Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2021; 77(5):454-462. PubMed ID: 34011788
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
