Skip to content
naulon
Get started

No retraction, correction or concern found when last checked on Oct 18, 2026.

18 F-FDG PET/CT Imaging In Oncology

Ahmad Almuhaideb, Nikolaos Papathanasiou, Jamshed Bomanji

Annals of Saudi Medicine · 2011 · Review

doi:10.4103/0256-4947.75771

Abstract

Accurate diagnosis and staging are essential for the optimal management of cancer patients. Positron emission tomography with 2-deoxy-2-[fluorine-18]fluoro-D-glucose integrated with computed tomography (18F-FDG PET/CT) has emerged as a powerful imaging tool for the detection of various cancers. The combined acquisition of PET and CT has synergistic advantages over PET or CT alone and minimizes their individual limitations. It is a valuable tool for staging and restaging of some tumors and has an important role in the detection of recurrence in asymptomatic patients with rising tumor marker levels and patients with negative or equivocal findings on conventional imaging techniques. It also allows for monitoring response to therapy and permitting timely modification of therapeutic regimens. In about 27% of the patients, the course of management is changed. This review provides guidance for oncologists/radiotherapists and clinical and surgical specialists on the use of 18F-FDG PET/CT in oncology.

Full text

From PubMed Central, U.S. National Library of Medicine, as current on Oct 18, 2026. Paragraph numbers are ours, so an answer can point at one.

Cancer is one of the leading causes of death worldwide. Accurate diagnosis, staging and restaging are essential for the optimal therapeutic management of cancer patients. Positron emission tomography (PET) with 2-deoxy-2-[fluorine-18]fluoro-D-glucose (18F-FDG), an analogue of glucose, provides valuable functional information based on the increased glucose uptake and glycolysis of cancer cells and depicts metabolic abnormalities before morphological alterations occur. 18F-FDG PET/CT acquires PET and CT data in the same imaging session and allows accurate anatomical localization of the lesions detected on the 18F-FDG PET scan (Figure 1). Following its introduction, integrated PET/CT rapidly gained clinical acceptance, and in the last decade it has become an important imaging tool in routine clinical oncology (Table 1).

18F-FDG PET/CT is more sensitive and specific in certain cancers and has been applied primarily as a staging and restaging tool that can guide patient care. It has also been used to distinguish responders from nonresponders before any reduction in tumor size occurs. In some tumors, e.g., lymphoma, non-small cell lung cancer and esophageal cancer, reduction in the 18F-FDG PET activity within days or weeks of initiating therapy correlates significantly with prolonged survival and other clinical endpoints now used in drug approvals.

There is evidence that 18F-FDG PET/CT is particularly useful for detecting recurrence, especially in asymptomatic patients with rising tumor marker levels and those with negative or equivocal conventional imaging findings. Yet there are some limitations and areas of uncertainty, mainly regarding the lack of specificity of 18F-FDG uptake and the variable avidity of some cancers for this tracer. This article reviews the main applications, advantages and limitations of 18F-FDG PET/CT in oncology.

METHODS

A search was performed to identify mainly all published randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews in the English language literature. An additional search was performed to identify relevant unpublished systematic reviews. These publications comprised both retrospective and prospective studies of variable methodological quality. The consequences of false-positive and false-negative test results when evaluating the clinical usefulness of tests, as well as the impact of 18F-FDG PET/CT on the management of cancer patients, were also reviewed.

Breast Cancer

18F-FDG PET/CT has no role in the diagnosis of primary breast cancer as its ability to detect small and/ or noninvasive carcinomas is poor, with an overall sensitivity of only 68% for tumors of size <2 cm. For axillary nodal staging, 18F-FDG PET/CT has variable sensitivity (79%-94%) and specificity (86%-92%), and therefore the predictive accuracy is insufficient to recommend this modality for routine use.

The most important current clinical applications of 18F-FDG PET/CT in breast cancer patients are for the detection and evaluation of recurrent or metastatic disease (Figure 2) and for monitoring response to therapy. In a patient-based analysis, it was shown that 18F-FDG PET/CT has a high overall sensitivity, specificity and accuracy for the detection of locoregional recurrence (89%, 84% and 87%, respectively) and distant metastases (100%, 97% and 98%, respectively) (Table 2) and is also more sensitive than the serum tumor marker CA 15-3 in detecting relapsed disease..

Detection of a decrease in the standardized uptake value (SUV) to a level below 55% of the baseline study is a powerful tool in monitoring histopathological response to chemotherapy for locally advanced breast cancers. Using this criterion, 18F-FDG PET/CT was found to have a sensitivity of 100%, a specificity of 85% and an accuracy of 88% in identifying responders after the first cycle, while corresponding values after the second cycle were 83%, 94% and 91%. After a single pulse of chemotherapy, 18F-FDG PET was able to predict complete pathological response with a sensitivity of 90% and a specificity of 74%. The reported overall survival in 18F-FDG PET/CT nonresponders is 8.8 months, compared with 19.2 months in responders. In the case of bone metastases, the responding bony lesion may become more sclerotic on the CT component of 18F-FDG PET/CT while its 18F-FDG activity reduces, which is a sign of bone healing.

Colorectal Cancer

In colorectal cancer, 18F-FDG PET/CT plays a pivotal role in the detection of recurrent disease, the assessment of residual post-therapy masses, the localization of recurrence in patients with an unexplained rise in serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and the staging of patients before surgical resection of local recurrence and distant metastatic disease. For the detection of intra-abdominal but extrahepatic colorectal recurrence, the sensitivity of 18F-FDG PET/CT is 88%; the specificity, 94%; and accuracy, 92%. For extra-abdominal and/ or hepatic recurrence, the sensitivity is 95%; specificity, 100%; and accuracy, 99%. The overall reported average sensitivity, specificity and accuracy for detecting recurrent disease are 89%, 92% and 90%, respectively (Table 2).

The residual pelvic soft tissue abnormalities frequently seen in the tumor bed region after therapy usually complicate the detection of local recurrence by the conventional imaging techniques. Abnormal 18F-FDG activity in a residual pelvic soft tissue lesion after 6 months from the completion of radiotherapy most likely represents tumor recurrence, and accuracy and positive predictive value (PPV) are even higher after 12 months. Elevated CEA levels are seen in two-thirds of patients with recurrent colorectal cancer.– 18F-FDG PET/CT is recommended for patients with an unexplained increase in serum CEA level after primary curative treatment of colorectal cancer, since it changes the course of management in 59% to 68% of the patients (Figure 3).–

18F-FDG PET/CT is emerging as a potentially valuable technique in radiotherapy planning, as well as in the prediction and evaluation of response to therapy. The use of 18F-FDG PET/CT for preoperative radiotherapy planning in rectal cancer significantly alters both the gross tumor volume and the clinical target volume, with a mean increase in size of 25% and 4%, respectively.

Esophageal Cancer

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) provides more accurate and cost-effective T-staging and N-staging than 18F-FDG PET/CT and conventional CT– and remains the standard for local tumor evaluation. The most important role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in the initial staging of esophageal cancer lies in M-staging (Figure 4) through its ability to identify unexpected metastases (i.e., metastases not visible on conventional imaging), which are present in up to 30% of the patients. 18F-FDG PET/CT has better sensitivity, specificity and accuracy (43%-78%, 93%-99% and 62%-86%, respectively) than CT and EUS for the detection of distant metastases (Table 2).– In M-staging, the addition of 18F-FDG PET/CT results in up-staging of 15% to 20% and down-staging of 5% to 7% of the patients. In addition, synchronous primary tumors are identified in 5.5% of patients, of which 75% are not identified by conventional imaging.

Assessment of tumor response to neoadjuvant therapy by 18F-FDG PET/CT has been found to be an important prognostic factor, with a reported diagnostic accuracy of 85%; this is similar to the diagnostic accuracy of EUS (86%) and significantly higher than that of conventional CT (54%).

In patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus and some inoperable cases, 18F-FDG PET/CT plays an important role in radiotherapy planning,– with a reported modification of gross tumor volume in 56% of the patients and alteration of the planning treatment volume in 53%.

18F-FDG PET is a highly sensitive tool for the detection of regional and distant recurrences, with a reported sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of 94%, 82% and 87%, respectively, in comparison to 81%, 82% and 81% for conventional imaging. Furthermore, 18F-FDG PET depicted recurrences in 12% of the patients with negative or equivocal findings on conventional imaging.

Head and Neck Cancer

18F-FDG PET/CT has an impact on the assessment of both newly diagnosed and previously treated patients with head and neck cancer. 18F-FDG PET/CT alters the initial clinical staging and TNM category of the tumor in 14% to 57% of the patients when compared with CT-based evaluation alone, and has an accuracy of approximately 90% compared with 86% for conventional CT.

The reported sensitivity and specificity of standard 18F-FDG PET/CT for the detection of lymph node metastases in a per-patient analysis were 94% and 84%, respectively (Table 2), in comparison to 78% and 84% for conventional CT.

18F-FDG PET/CT has been found to identify synchronous primaries in 8.1%, distant metastases in 15.4% and the site of an unknown primary in 73% of the patients with head and neck cancer. In addition, it alters the initial management in 18% to 37% of the patients. The impact of 18F-FDG PET/CT on radiotherapy planning is especially important: planning is changed in 29% of the patients, with an alteration in the gross tumor volume in 57% of the patients. It has been reported that the gross tumor volume is statistically significantly larger with 18F-FDG PET/CT–based assessment than with CT-based assessment. There is still a high risk of locoregional recurrence (18%-31%) and distant metastasis (20%-25%) despite aggressive treatment. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of 18F-FDG PET/CT in restaging patients with head and neck cancer are 88%, 78% and 86%, respectively.

Postoperative, but pre-radiotherapy, 18F-FDG PET/CT evaluation within a median of 4 weeks after surgery has been found to alter the course of management in 15% of the patients. In addition, it has a higher accuracy than conventional CT when used at 4 to 8 weeks following the end of chemoradiotherapy, with an even higher sensitivity and specificity after 8 weeks.

Lung Cancer

Correct initial staging of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is important in distinguishing operable patients from those who are inoperable, but can benefit from neoadjuvant treatment. The American College of Chest Physicians guidelines recommend 18F-FDG PET for noninvasive staging owing to the low sensitivity and specificity of the commonly used conventional CT in mediastinal nodal staging. 18F-FDG PET/CT is a more accurate method and is the emerging standard test for preoperative diagnosis and staging of NSCLC; it changes the course of management in up to 52% of cases and has a major role in reducing the number of futile thoracotomies.–

Diagnostic accuracy and sensitivity of 18F-FDG PET/CT staging of lung cancer in terms of operability have recently been reported to be 79% and 64%, respectively, in comparison to 60% and 32% for conventional staging The initial reported sensitivity and specificity for 18F-FDG PET in mediastinal nodal assessment are 67% to 92% and 82% to 99%, respectively (Table 2), in comparison to 25% to 71% and 66% to 98% for CT alone. Overall, the correct stage is assessed by 18F-FDG PET in 85% to 96% of the cases as compared with 58% to 59% by conventional CT alone, and 18F-FDG PET has a negative predictive value (NPV) of 97% (CT, 87%).– Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of 18F-FDG PET/CT for the depiction of malignant nodes are 85%, 84% and 84%, respectively, in comparison to 70%, 69% and 69% for CT alone.

The high NPV of 18F-FDG PET/CT (up to 97%) for mediastinal disease– has led to the recommendation to omit mediastinoscopy in patients with negative mediastinal 18F-FDG PET/CT. However, special attention should be paid to central tumors, which have a high incidence of occult N2 disease. If 18F-FDG PET/CT is positive, then mediastinoscopy is necessary to exclude a false-positive result. 18F-FDG PET/CT detects unexpected extrathoracic metastases (Figure 5) in 11% to 15% of asymptomatic patients, avoiding futile surgical intervention.

18F-FDG PET/CT is useful for radiation therapy planning since it provides more accurate initial staging, allowing omission of elective radiation of clinically uninvolved nodal stations. In addition, its CT data may be used for radiation therapy planning if properly acquired. This modality can be successfully applied to patients with limited-disease small cell lung cancer for whom the treatment is concurrent chemoradiotherapy, with a reported 24% change in the treatment field.

Post-treatment fibrosis and scarring are common, and 18F-FDG PET/CT is more accurate than conventional CT in detecting residual and recurrent disease, which allows more reliable treatment planning decisions.– In addition, conventional CT alone has been shown to be suboptimal in mediastinal restaging after treatment. 18F-FDG PET has sensitivity of 93% to 100% and a specificity of 89% to 92% for detecting recurrent NSCLC.– Patients with residual 18F-FDG uptake after treatment have a poor prognosis when compared to those without residual 18F-FDG uptake, taking into consideration the expected post-therapeutic inflammatory changes to avoid false-positive interpretation.

Reduction in the baseline maximum SUV on 18F-FDG PET is predictive of a complete pathologic response with a sensitivity of 90%, a specificity of 100% and an accuracy of 96%, irrespective of the cell type or neoadjuvant treatment. Indeterminate solitary pulmonary nodules (SPNs) remain a clinical dilemma. 18F-FDG PET/CT currently should be reserved for cases where CT-guided fine-needle biopsy either is technically difficult or has been non-diagnostic. Compared with CT scan, 18F-FDG PET has similar sensitivity but better specificity in depicting malignancy in SPNs, the reported values ranging from 81% to 100% and from 63% to 100%, respectively.–

Lymphoma

18F-FDG PET/CT is now an established standard in the initial staging, monitoring of response to therapy and restaging after treatment of patients with Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) and high-grade non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). The clinical utility of 18F-FDG PET/CT depends on the pathological subtype but not necessarily on the tumor grade. 18F-FDG PET/CT shows a sensitivity of 86% and a specificity of 96%, in comparison to 81% and 41% with conventional CT alone, in disease assessment (presence or absence) of HL during both initial staging and restaging. In patients with HL or high-grade NHL, the sensitivity and specificity of 18F-FDG PET/CT for lymph node involvement are 94% and 100%, respectively, while for organ involvement they are 88% and 100% (Table 2).

False-negative scans are noted in MALT (mucosal-associated lymphoid tissue) lymphomas, which are not highly metabolically active. Aggressive (high-grade) NHL typically shows more intense 18F-FDG activity in comparison to lower-grade NHL, although there is significant overlap between them. Detection of an FDG-avid lesion in a documented low-grade NHL should raise the suspicion of transformation to a higher-grade lymphoma. Infectious and/or inflammatory diseases are known causes of false-positive 18F-FDG PET/CT scans, and the possibility of their presence should be entertained at interpretation.–

Residual post-therapy masses are seen in up to 85% of the cases of HL and up to 40% of the cases of NHL. Early interim 18F-FDG PET/CT results (after two to four cycles) correlate well with event-free survival in HL (Figure 6)– and high-grade NHL. In high-grade NHL, the event-free survival at 2 years and 5 years has been reported to be 82% and 88.8%, respectively, for negative interim PET patients in compassion to 43% and 16.2%, respectively, for positive interim PET patients. In another study, the 2-year event-free survival in HL patients with negative interim 18F-FDG PET was 95% in comparison to 12.8% in those with positive interim 18F-FDG PET.

Thyroid Cancer

More than 90% of thyroid cancers are differentiated, comprising papillary and follicular carcinoma. In de-differentiated thyroid cancer, recurrent or metastatic tumor cells may lose the expression of sodium iodide symporter and have a decreased ability to concentrate radioiodine. A multicenter trial showed that the sensitivity of 18F-FDG PET is 85% in patients with raised thyroglobulin and negative 131I whole-body scans. In this subgroup of patients, 18F-FDG PET/CT alters clinical management in 23% to 51% of the pateints.–

Renal cell carcinoma

18F-FDG PET/CT has limited sensitivity in the evaluation of metastatic Renal cell carcinoma (RCC), particularly for small metastatic lesions. However, a positive 18F-FDG PET/CT scan should be considered strongly suspicious for local recurrence or metastasis because of the high specificity and PPV of this test. A combined test (PET/contrast-enhanced CT) may be necessary if important management decisions are to be based on the test result.

Prostate cancer

Currently there is no established role for 18F-FDG PET/CT in the assessment of prostatic cancer, since it has a low accuracy owing to the relatively low metabolic rate of the tumor as well as the interfering adjacent urinary excretion of the tracer. However, other new PET radiotracers such as 11C-choline and 18F-fluorocholine have shown promising results in the management of prostate cancer.

Bladder cancer

Currently there is no established role for 18F-FDG PET/CT in the assessment of bladder cancer, since the high adjacent physiological urinary excretion of the tracer renders the signal-to-noise ratio unfavorable for lesion detection.

Cervical cancer

18F-FDG PET(/CT) has a major role in preoperative staging of advanced cervical cancer and restaging after treatment. 18F-FDG PET has a sensitivity of 86%, a specificity of 94% and an accuracy of 92% for detection of para-aortic nodal metastases in patients with advanced cervical cancer and negative abdominal CT. Furthermore, preoperative evaluation with 18F-FDG PET influences patient management in 18% of patients; while in the case of recurrent cervical cancer, 18F-FDG PET shows an overall sensitivity of 86% to 94% and specificity of 76% to 100%. The 2-year progression-free survival rate is 86% for patients with a negative post-treatment scan in comparison to 40% for those with persistent abnormal 18F-FDG uptake.

Ovarian cancer

18F-FDG PET(/CT) has a major role in the evaluation of recurrent ovarian cancer when there is an increase in serum CA-125 and inconclusive or negative conventional (CT/MRI) imaging. The reported sensitivity and PPV of 18F-FDG PET/CT for detection of recurrent disease at least 1 cm in size are 83.3% and 93.8%, respectively.

Cutaneous Melanoma

There is no role for 18F-FDG PET/CT in early cutaneous melanoma (American Joint Committee on Cancer stages I and II). In advanced (AJCC stages III and IV) and recurrent cutaneous melanoma, 18F-FDG PET shows 100% sensitivity for visceral and abdominal nodal metastases and 100% accuracy for superficial lymph node metastases, but lower sensitivity for pulmonary metastases. However, the CT component of a combined PET/CT scan would allow better evaluation of pulmonary metastases. The reported rate of synchronous tumor on 18F-FDG PET was 4.3%. 18F-FDG PET results in changes in staging in 12% to 34% of the patients and changes in overall management in 8% to 61% of the patients.

Brain Tumors

Sensitivity and specificity of 18F-FDG PET/CT in evaluating low-grade and recurrent tumors and treatment-induced changes are relatively low, mainly owing to the adjacent high physiological brain 18F-FDG activity; however, this can be improved significantly by co-registration with magnetic resonance imaging and potentially by delayed imaging. 18F-FDG PET/CT is capable of identifying anaplastic transformation of a documented low-grade tumor and has a prognostic value.

Pitfalls

It is extremely important to consider some pitfalls of 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging during scan interpretation. The ability to detect tumors depends on various factors, such as their size, metabolic activity, the surrounding background activity and the serum glucose level. False-negative results may be obtained in small lesions (<7 mm), in tumors with a low metabolic rate (e.g., differentiated neuroendocrine tumors, prostate cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma, MALT and mucinous adenocarcinoma), in the presence of interfering cytostatic treatments that may decrease the tumor 18F-FDG uptake and when there is suboptimal preparation of patients with glucose intolerance or diabetes (since elevated serum glucose levels result in decreased FDG uptake in tumors owing to competitive inhibition). In addition, local high physiological FDG activity (as in the brain and the genitourinary tract) can render the signal-to-noise ratio unfavorable for lesion detection (Figure 7), and may give rise to a false-negative result by masking a malignant lesion.

On the other hand, activated macrophages, neutrophils, fibroblasts and granulation tissue show increased 18F-FDG activity; therefore, infectious/ inflammatory processes (e.g., granulomatous diseases, abscesses, active thyroiditis), post-surgical changes (healing surgical wounds, scars, stoma, tube placement) and post-radiation changes (active fibrosis, radiation pneumonitis) may demonstrate increased 18F-FDG activity and cause a false-positive result.

The Future

As to the evolving role of 18F-FDG PET/CT and possible future directions for PET/CT, the need to evaluate early response to therapy remains, and there are no good imaging tools at present. Data shows that 18F-FDG PET/CT predicts not only response to therapy, but also further hard endpoints, such as time to progression. It is likely that more well-designed and large clinical studies on 18F-FDG PET/CT will expand its approved clinical indications in this context. Currently the majority of PET/CT investigations in oncology use 18F-FDG (glucose metabolic marker) as a tracer. However, the changing demand to evaluate tumor angiogenesis, tumor hypoxia, tumor cell proliferation and tumor receptors, has led to the development of other specific tracers, which will get greater clinical acceptance with time.

References 134

  1. 1.

    Yang SK, Cho N, Moon WK. The role of PET/CT for evaluating breast cancer. Korean J Radiol. 2007;8:429-37.

    Not in our library10.3348/kjr.2007.8.5.429

  2. 2.

    Avril N, Rosé CA, Schelling M, Dose J, Kuhn W, Bense S, et al. Breast imaging with positron emission tomography and fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose: Use and limitations. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18:3495-502.

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2000.18.20.3495

  3. 3.

    Schirrmeister H, Kühn T, Guhlmann A, Santjohanser C, Hörster T, Nüssle K, et al. Fluorine-18 2-deoxy-2-fluoro-D-glucose PET in the preoperative staging of breast cancer: Comparison with the standard staging procedures. Eur J Nucl Med. 2001;28:351-8.

    Not in our library10.1007/s002590000448

  4. 4.

    Greco M, Crippa F, Agresti R, Seregni E, Gerali A, Giovanazzi R, et al. Axillary lymph node staging in breast cancer by 2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose-positron emission tomography: Clinical evaluation and alternative management. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001;93:630-5.

    Not in our library10.1093/jnci/93.8.630

  5. 5.

    Benard F, Turcotte E. Imaging in breast cancer: Single-photon computed tomography and positron-emission tomography. Breast Cancer Res. 2005;7:153-62.

    Not in our library10.1186/bcr1201

  6. 6.

    Eubank WB, Mankoff DA. Evolving role of positron emission tomography in breast cancer imaging. Semin Nucl Med. 2005;35:84-99.

    Not in our library10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2004.11.001

  7. 7.

    Kamel EM, Wyss MT, Fehr MK, von Schulthess GK, Goerres GW. [18F]-Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in patients with suspected recurrence of breast cancer. J cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2003;129:147-53.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00432-003-0424-z

  8. 8.

    Schelling M, Avril N, Nährig J, Kuhn W, Römer W, Sattler D, et al. Positron emission tomography using [(18)F]Fluorodeoxyglucose for monitoring primary chemotherapy in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18:1689-95.

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2000.18.8.1689

  9. 9.

    Smith IC, Welch AE, Hutcheon AW, Miller ID, Payne S, Chilcott F, et al. Positron emission tomography using [(18)F]-fluorodeoxy-D-glucose to predict the pathologic response of breast cancer to primary chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18:1676-88.

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2000.18.8.1676

  10. 10.

    Dose Schwarz J, Bader M, Jenicke L, Hemminger G, Janicke F, Avril N. Early prediction of response to chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer using sequential 18F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:1144-50.

    Not in our library

  11. 11.

    De Geus-Oei LF, Ruers TJ, Punt CJ, Leer JW, Corstens FH, Oyen WJ. FDG-PET in colorectal cancer. Cancer Imaging. 2006;6:S71-81.

    Not in our library10.1102/1470-7330.2006.9014

  12. 12.

    Votrubova J, Belohlavek O, Jaruskova M, Oliverius M, Lohynska R, Trskova K, et al. The role of FDG-PET/CT in the detection of recurrent colorectal cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2006;33:779-84.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00259-006-0072-z

  13. 13.

    Chessin DB, Kiran RP, Akhurst T, Guillem JG. The emerging role of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the management of primary and recurrent rectal cancer. J Am Coll Surg. 2005;201:948-56.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2005.06.277

  14. 14.

    Ogunbiyi OA, Flanagan FL, Dehdashti F, Siegel BA, Trask DD, Birnbaum EH, et al. Detection of recurrent and metastatic colorectal cancer: Comparison of positron emission tomography and computed tomography. Ann Surg Oncol. 1997;4:613-20.

    Not in our library10.1007/bf02303744

  15. 15.

    Moore HG, Akhurst T, Larson SM, Minsky BD, Mazumdar M, Guillem JG. A case-controlled study of 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the detection of pelvic recurrence in previously irradiated rectal cancer patients. J Am Coll Surg. 2003;197:22-8.

    Not in our library10.1016/s1072-7515(03)00337-5

  16. 16.

    Even-Sapir E, Parag Y, Lerman H, Gutman M, Levine C, Rabau M, et al. Detection of recurrence in patients with rectal cancer: PET/CT after abdominoperineal or anterior resection. Radiology. 2004;232:815-22.

    Not in our library10.1148/radiol.2323031065

  17. 17.

    Esteves FP, Schuster DM, Halkar RK. Gastrointestinal tract malignancies and positron emission tomography: An overview. Semin Nucl Med. 2006;36:169-81.

    Not in our library10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2005.12.002

  18. 18.

    Liu FY, Chen JS, Changchien CR, Yeh CY, Liu SH, Ho KC, et al. Utility of 2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography in managing patients of colorectal cancer with unexplained carcinoembryonic antigen elevation at different levels. Dis Colon Rectum. 2005;48:1900-12.

    Not in our library10.1007/s10350-005-0097-6

  19. 19.

    Moertel CG, Fleming TR, Macdonald JS, Haller DG, Laurie JA, Tangen C. An evaluation of the carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) test for monitoring patients with resected colon cancer. JAMA. 1993;270:943-7.

    Not in our library

  20. 20.

    Engaras B. Individual cutoff levels of carcinoembryonic antigen and CA 242 indicate recurrence of colorectal cancer with high sensitivity. Dis Colon Rectum. 2003;46:313-21.

    Not in our library10.1007/s10350-004-6548-7

  21. 21.

    Flamen P, Hoekstra OS, Homans F, Van Cutsem E, Maes A, Stroobants S, et al. Unexplained rising carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) in the postoperative surveillance of colorectal cancer: The utility of positron emission tomography (PET). Eur J Cancer. 2001;37:862-9.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0959-8049(01)00049-1

  22. 22.

    Blokhuis TJ, van der Schaaf MC, van den Tol MP, Comans EF, Manoliu RA, van der Sijp JR. Results of radio frequency ablation of primary and secondary liver tumors: Long-term follow-up with computed tomography and positron emission tomography-18F-deoxyfluoroglucose scanning. Scand J Gastroenterol Suppl. 2004;241:93-7.

    Not in our library10.1080/00855920410014623

  23. 23.

    Simó M, Lomeña F, Setoain J, Pérez G, Castellucci P, Costansa JM, et al. FDG-PET improves the management of patients with suspected recurrence of colorectal cancer. Nucl Med Commun. 2002;23:975-82.

    Not in our library10.1097/00006231-200210000-00007

  24. 24.

    Ciernik IF, Dizendorf E, Baumert BG, Reiner B, Burger C, Davis JB, et al. Radiation treatment planning with an integrated positron emission and computer tomography (PET/CT): A feasibility study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003;57:853-63.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0360-3016(03)00346-8

  25. 25.

    Bassi MC, Turri L, Sacchetti G, Loi G, Cannillo B, La Mattina P, et al. FDG-PET/CT imaging for staging and target volume delineation in preoperative conformal radiotherapy of rectal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;70:1423-6.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.08.043

  26. 26.

    Pfau PR, Perlman SB, Stanko P, Frick TJ, Gopal DV, Said A, et al. The role and clinical value of EUS in a multimodality esophageal carcinoma staging program with CT and positron emission tomography. Gastrointest Endosc. 2007;65:377-84.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.gie.2006.12.015

  27. 27.

    Zhang X, Watson DI, Lally C, Bessell JR. Endoscopic ultrasound for preoperative staging of esophageal carcinoma. Surg Endosc. 2005;19:1618-21.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00464-005-0250-2

  28. 28.

    Gan SI, Rajan E, Adler DG, Baron TH, Anderson MA, et al. ASGE Standards of Practice Committee. Role of EUS. Gastrointest Endosc. 2007;66:425-34.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.gie.2007.05.026

  29. 29.

    Yang GY, Wagner TD, Jobe BA, Thomas CR. The role of positron emission tomography in esophageal cancer. Gastrointest Cancer Res. 2008;2:3-9.

    Not in our library

  30. 30.

    Kato H, Miyazaki T, Nakajima M, Takita J, Kimura H, Faried A, et al. The incremental effect of positron emission tomography on diagnostic accuracy in the initial staging of esophageal carcinoma. Cancer. 2005;103:148-56.

    Not in our library10.1002/cncr.20724

  31. 31.

    Choi JY, Lee KH, Shim YM, Lee KS, Kim JJ, Kim SE, et al. Improved detection of individual nodal involvement in squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus by FDG PET. J Nucl Med. 2000;41:808-15.

    Not in our library

  32. 32.

    Yoon YC, Lee KS, Shim YM, Kim BT, Kim K, Kim TS. Metastasis to regional lymph nodes in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: CT versus FDG PET for presurgical detection prospective study. Radiology. 2003;227:764-70.

    Not in our library10.1148/radiol.2281020423

  33. 33.

    Luketich JD, Friedman DM, Weigel TL, Meehan MA, Keenan RJ, Townsend DW, et al. Evaluation of distant metastases in esophageal cancer: 100 consecutive positron emission tomography scans. Ann Thorac Surg. 1999;68:1133-6.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0003-4975(99)00974-1

  34. 34.

    Heeren PA, Jager PL, Bongaerts F, van Dullemen H, Sluiter W, Plukker JT. Detection of distant metastases in esophageal cancer with (18)F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:980-7.

    Not in our library

  35. 35.

    Flamen P, Lerut A, Van Cutsem E, De Wever W, Peeters M, Stroobants S, et al. Utility of positron emission tomography for the staging of patients with potentially operable esophageal carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18:3202-10.

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2000.18.18.3202

  36. 36.

    van Westreenen HL, Westerterp M, Jager PL, van Dullemen HM, Sloof GW, Comans EF, et al. Synchronous primary neoplasms detected on 18F-FDG PET in staging of patients with esophageal cancer. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:1321-5.

    Not in our library

  37. 37.

    Brücher BL, Weber W, Bauer M, Fink U, Avril N, Stein HJ, et al. Neoadjuvant therapy of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: Response evaluation by positron emission tomography. Ann Surg. 2001;233:300-9.

    Not in our library10.1097/00000658-200103000-00002

  38. 38.

    Westerterp M, van Westreenen HL, Reitsma JB, Hoekstra OS, Stoker J, Fockens P, et al. Esophageal cancer: CT, endoscopic US, and FDG PET for assessment of response to neoadjuvant therapy--systematic review. Radiology. 2005;326:841-51.

    Not in our library10.1148/radiol.2363041042

  39. 39.

    Konski A, Doss M, Milestone B, Haluszka O, Hanlon A, Freedman G, et al. The integration of 18-fluoro-deoxy-glucose positron emission tomography and endoscopic ultrasound in the treatment-planning process for esophageal carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005;61:1123-8.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ijrobp.2004.07.717

  40. 40.

    Vrieze O, Haustermans K, De Wever W, Lerut T, Van Cutsem E, Ectors N, et al. Is there a role for FDG-PET in radiotherapy planning in esophageal carcinoma? Radiother Oncol. 2004;73:269-75.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.radonc.2004.10.001

  41. 41.

    Moureau-Zabotto L, Touboul E, Lerouge D, Deniaud-Alexandre E, Grahek D, Foulquier JN, et al. Impact of CT and 18F-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography image fusion for conformal radiotherapy in esophageal carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005;63:340-5.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.02.039

  42. 42.

    Flamen P, Lerut A, Van Cutsem E, Cambier JP, Maes A, De Wever W, et al. The utility of positron emission tomography for the diagnosis and staging of recurrent esophageal cancer. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2000;120:1085-92.

    Not in our library10.1067/mtc.2000.110464

  43. 43.

    Fleming AJ, Johansen ME. The clinician’s expectations from the use of positron emission tomography/computed tomography scanning in untreated and treated head and neck cancer patients. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2008;16:127-34.

    Not in our library10.1097/moo.0b013e3282f4939a

  44. 44.

    Koshy M, Paulino AC, Howell R, Schuster D, Halkar R, Davis LW. F-18 FDG PET-CT fusion in radiotherapy treatment planning for head and neck cancer. Head Neck. 2005;27:494-502.

    Not in our library10.1002/hed.20179

  45. 45.

    Wang D, Schultz CJ, Jursinic PA, Bialkowski M, Zhu XR, Brown WD, et al. Initial experience of FDG-PET/CT guided IMRT of head-and-neck carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;65:143-51.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.11.048

  46. 46.

    Fleming AJ, Smith SP, Paul CM, Hall NC, Daly BT, Agrawal A, et al. Impact of [18F]-2-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography on previously untreated head and neck cancer patients. Laryngoscope. 2007;117:1173-9.

    Not in our library10.1097/mlg.0b013e31805d017b

  47. 47.

    Gordin A, Golz A, Keidar Z, Daitzchman M, Bar-Shalom R, Israel O. The role of FDG-PET/CT imaging in head and neck malignant conditions: Impact on diagnostic accuracy and patient care. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2007;137:130-7.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.otohns.2007.02.001

  48. 48.

    Yamamoto Y, Wong T, Turkington T, Hawk T, Coleman R. Head and neck cancer: Dedicated FDG PET/CT protocol for detection – phantom and initial clinical studies. Radiology. 2007;244:263-72.

    Not in our library10.1148/radiol.2433060043

  49. 49.

    Zanation AM, Sutton DK, Couch ME, Weissler MC, Shockley WW, Shores CG. Use, accuracy, and implications for patient management of [18F]-2-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission/computerized tomography for head and neck tumors. Laryngoscope. 2005;115:1186-90.

    Not in our library10.1097/01.mlg.0000163763.89647.9f

  50. 50.

    Connell CA, Corry J, Milner AD, Hogg A, Hicks RJ, Rischin D, et al. Clinical impact of, and prognostic stratification by, F-18 FDG PET/CT in head and neck mucosal squamous cell carcinoma. Head Neck. 2007;29:986-95.

    Not in our library10.1002/hed.20629

  51. 51.

    Deantonio L, Beldì D, Gambaro G, Loi G, Brambilla M, Inglese E, et al. FDG-PET/CT imaging for staging and radiotherapy treatment planning of head and neck carcinoma. Radiat Oncol. 2008;3:29.

    Not in our library10.1186/1748-717x-3-29

  52. 52.

    Schwartz DL, Ford E, Rajendran J, Yueh B, Coltrera MD, Virgin J, et al. FDG-PET/CT imaging for preradiotherapy staging of head-and-neck squamous cell carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005;61:129-36.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ijrobp.2004.03.040

  53. 53.

    Bernier J, Domenge C, Ozsahin M, Matuszewska K, Lefèbvre JL, Greiner RH, et al. Postoperative irradiation with or without concomitant chemotherapy for locally advanced head and neck cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:1945-52.

    Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa032641

  54. 54.

    Cooper JS, Pajak TF, Forastiere AA, Jacobs J, Campbell BH, Saxman SB, et al. Postoperative concurrent radiotherapy and chemotherapy for high-risk squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:1937-44.

    Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa032646

  55. 55.

    Halpern BS, Yeom K, Fueger BJ, Lufkin RB, Czernin J, Allen-Auerbach M. Evaluation of suspected local recurrence in head and neck cancer: A comparison between PET and PET/CT for biopsy proven lesions. Eur J Radiol. 2007;62:199-204.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ejrad.2006.11.037

  56. 56.

    Shintani SA, Foote RL, Lowe VJ, Brown PD, Garces YI, Kasperbauer JL. Utility of PET/CT imaging performed early after surgical resection in the adjuvant treatment planning for head and neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;70:322-9.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.06.038

  57. 57.

    Andrade RS, Heron DE, Degirmenci B, Filho PA, Branstetter BF, Seethala RR, et al. Posttreatment assessment of response using FDG-PET/CT for patients treated with definitive radiation therapy for head and neck cancers. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;65:1315-22.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.03.015

  58. 58.

    Miele E, Spinelli GP, Tomao F, Zullo A, De Marinis F, Pasciuti G, et al. Positron emission tomography (PET) radiotracers in oncology--utility of 18F-fluoro-deoxy-glucose (FDG)-PET in the management of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2008;27:52.

    Not in our library10.1186/1756-9966-27-52

  59. 59.

    Silvestri GA, Tanoue LT, Margolis ML, Barker J, Detterbeck F. The noninvasive staging of non-small cell lung cancer: The guidelines. Chest. 2003;123:147S-56.

    Not in our library10.1378/chest.123.1_suppl.147s

  60. 60.

    Diva F, Oliveira A, Barroso A, Conde S, Parente B. Positron emission tomography: Indications in lung cancer - a prospective experience. Rev Port Pneumol. 2005;11:12-3.

    Not in our library

  61. 61.

    Gupta NC, Graeber GM, Bishop HA. Comparative efficacy of positron emission tomography with fluorodeoxyglucose in evaluation of small (<1 cm), intermediate (1 to 3 cm), and large (>3 cm) lymph node lesions. Chest. 2000;117:773-8.

    Not in our library10.1378/chest.117.3.773

  62. 62.

    Weber WA, Petersen V, Schmidt B, Tyndale-Hines L, Link T, Peschel C, et al. Positron emission tomography in non-small cell lung cancer: Prediction of response to chemotherapy by quantitative assessment of glucose use. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:2651-7.

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2003.12.004

  63. 63.

    Eschmann SM, Friedel G, Paulsen F, Reimold M, Hehr T, Budach W, et al. 18F-18F-FDG PET for assessment of therapy response and preoperative re-evaluation after neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy in stage III non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007;34:463-71.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00259-006-0273-5

  64. 64.

    Fischer B, Lassen U, Mortensen J, Larsen S, Loft A, Bertelsen A, et al. Preoperative staging of lung cancer with PET-CT. N Eng J Med. 2009;361:32-9.

    Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa0900043

  65. 65.

    Steinert HC, Hauser M, Allemann F, Engel H, Berthold T, von Schulthess GK, et al. Non-small cell lung cancer: Nodal staging with FDG PET versus CT with correlative lymph node mapping and sampling. Radiology. 1997;202:441-6.

    Not in our library10.1148/radiology.202.2.9015071

  66. 66.

    Marom EM, McAdams HP, Erasmus JJ, Goodman PC, Culhane DK, Coleman RE, et al. Staging non-small cell lung cancer with whole-body PET. Radiology. 1999;212:803-9.

    Not in our library10.1148/radiology.212.3.r99se21803

  67. 67.

    Gould MK, Kuschner WG, Rydzak CE, Maclean CC, Demas AN, Shigemitsu H, et al. Test performance of positron emission tomography and computed tomography for mediastinal staging in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer: A metaanalysis. Ann Intern Med. 2003;139:879-92.

    Not in our library10.7326/0003-4819-139-11-200311180-00013

  68. 68.

    Shim SS, Lee KS, Kim BT, Chung MJ, Lee EJ, Han J, et al. Non-small cell lung cancer: Prospective comparison of integrated FDG PET/CT and CT alone for preoperative staging. Radiology. 2005;236:1011-9.

    Not in our library10.1148/radiol.2363041310

  69. 69.

    Pieterman RM, van Putten JW, Meuzelaar JJ, Mooyaart EL, Vaalburg W, Koèter GH, et al. Preoperative staging of non-small-cell lung cancer with positron-emission tomography. N Engl J Med. 2000;343:254-61.

    Not in our library10.1056/nejm200007273430404

  70. 70.

    Verhagen AF, Bootsma GP, Tjan-Heijnen VC, van der Wilt GJ, Cox AL, Brouwer MH, et al. FDG-PET in staging lung cancer: How does it change the algorithm? Lung cancer. 2004;44:175-81.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.lungcan.2003.11.007

  71. 71.

    Vansteenkiste JF, Stroobants SG, De Leyn PR, Dupont PJ, Bogaert J, Maes A, et al. Lymph node staging in non-small-cell lung cancer with FDG-PET scan: A prospective study on 690 lymph node stations from 68 patients. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16:2142-9.

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.1998.16.6.2142

  72. 72.

    Jett JR. How to optimize staging in early non-small cell lung cancer. Lung cancer. 2002;38:S13-6.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0169-5002(02)00246-5

  73. 73.

    Kramer H, Groen HJ. Current concepts in the mediastinal lymph node staging of nonsmall cell lung cancer. Ann Surg. 2003;238:180-8.

    Not in our library10.1097/01.sla.0000081086.37779.1a

  74. 74.

    Al-Sarraf N, Aziz R, Gately K, Lucey J, Wilson L, McGovern E, et al. Pattern and predictors of occult mediastinal lymph node involvement in non-small cell lung cancer patients with negative mediastinal uptake on positron emission tomography. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2008;33:104-9.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ejcts.2007.09.026

  75. 75.

    Weder W, Schmid RA, Bruchhaus H, Hillinger S, von Schulthess GK, Steinert HC. Detection of extrathoracic metastases by positron emission tomography in lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg. 1998;66:886-92.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0003-4975(98)00675-4

  76. 76.

    Valk PE, Pounds TR, Hopkins DM, Haseman MK, Hofer GA, Greiss HB, et al. Staging non-small cell lung cancer by whole-body positron emission tomographic imaging. Ann Thorac Surg. 1995;60:1573-81.

    Not in our library10.1016/0003-4975(95)00752-0

  77. 77.

    De Ruysscher D, Wanders S, van Haren E, Hochstenbag M, Geeraedts W, Utama I, Simons J, et al. Selective mediastinal node irradiation based on FDG-PET scan data in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer: A prospective clinical study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005;62:988-94.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ijrobp.2004.12.019

  78. 78.

    Bradley J, Thorstad WL, Mutic S, Miller TR, Dehdashti F, Siegel BA, et al. Impact of FDG-PET on radiation therapy volume delineation in non-small-cell lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004;59:78-86.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ijrobp.2003.10.044

  79. 79.

    van Loon J, Offermann C, Bosmans G, Wanders R, Dekker A, Borger J, et al. 18FDG-PET based radiation planning of mediastinal lymph nodes in limited disease small cell lung cancer changes radiotherapy fields: A planning study. Radiother Oncol. 2008;87:49-54.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.radonc.2008.02.019

  80. 80.

    Joshi SC, Pant I, Hamzah F, Kumar G, Shukla AN. Integrated positron emission tomography/computed tomography fusion imaging: An emerging gold standard in lung cancer. Indian J Cancer. 2008;45:137-41.

    Not in our library10.4103/0019-509x.44660

  81. 81.

    Kiffer JD, Berlangieri SU, Scott AM, Quong G, Feigen M, Schumer W, et al. The contribution of 18F-fluoro-2-deoxy-glucose positron emission tomographic imaging to radiotherapy planning in lung cancer. Lung cancer. 1998;19:167-77.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0169-5002(97)00086-x

  82. 82.

    Mac Manus MP, Hicks RJ. PET scanning in lung cancer: Current status and future directions. Semin Surg Oncol. 2003;21:149-55.

    Not in our library10.1002/ssu.10032

  83. 83.

    Hellwig D, Gröschel A, Graeter TP, Hellwig AP, Nestle U, Schäfers HJ, et al. Diagnostic performance and prognostic impact of FDG-PET in suspected recurrence of surgically treated non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2006;33:13-21.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00259-005-1919-4

  84. 84.

    Rohren EM, Lowe VJ. Update in PET imaging of nonsmall cell lung cancer. Semin Nucl Med. 2004;34:134-53.

    Not in our library10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2003.12.004

  85. 85.

    Stroobants S, Verschakelen J, Vansteenkiste J. Value of FDG-PET in the management of non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J radiol. 2003;45:49-59.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0720-048x(02)00282-6

  86. 86.

    Bury T, Corhay JL, Duysinx B, Daenen F, Ghaye B, Barthelemy N, et al. Value of FDG-PET in detecting residual or recurrent nonsmall cell lung cancer. Eur Respir J. 1999;14:1376-80.

    Not in our library10.1183/09031936.99.14613769

  87. 87.

    Hellwig D, Gröschel A, Graeter TP, Hellwig AP, Nestle U, Schäfers HJ, et al. Diagnostic performance and prognostic impact of FDG-PET in suspected recurrence of surgically treated non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2006;33:13-21.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00259-005-1919-4

  88. 88.

    Hicks RJ, Kalff V, MacManus MP, Ware RE, McKenzie AF, Matthews JP, et al. The utility of (18)F-FDG PET for suspected recurrent non-small cell lung cancer after potentially curative therapy: Impact on management and prognostic stratification. J Nucl Med. 2001;42:1605-13.

    Not in our library

  89. 89.

    Cerfolio RJ, Bryant AS, Winokur TS, Ohja B, Bartolucci AA. Repeat FDG-PET after neoadjuvant therapy is a predictor of pathologic response in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg. 2004;78:1903-9.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.athoracsur.2004.06.102

  90. 90.

    Lowe V, Naunheim K. Positron emission tomography in lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg. 1998;65:1821-9.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0003-4975(98)00106-4

  91. 91.

    Behzadi A, Ung Y, Lowe V, Deschamps C. The role of positron emission tomography in the management of non-small cell lung cancer. Can J Surg. 2009;52:235-42.

    Not in our library

  92. 92.

    Fletcher JW, Kymes SM, Gould M, Alazraki N, Coleman RE, Lowe VJ. et al.A comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FDG PET and CT in the characterization of solitary pulmonary nodules. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:179-85.

    Not in our library10.2967/jnumed.107.044990

  93. 93.

    Dhanapathi H, Kumar R. F-18 FDG PET/PET-CT in the management of lymphoma. Indian J Med Pediatr Oncol. 2007;28:17-23.

    Not in our library

  94. 94.

    Elstrom R, Guan L, Baker G, Nakhoda K, Vergilio JA, Zhuang H, et al. Utility of FDG-PET scanning in lymphoma by WHO classification. Blood. 2003;101:3875-6.

    Not in our library10.1182/blood-2002-09-2778

  95. 95.

    Stumpe KD, Urbinelli M, Steinert HC, Glanzmann C, Buck A, von Schulthess GK. Whole-body positron emission tomography using fluorodeoxyglucose for staging of lymphoma: Effectiveness and comparison with computed tomography. Eur J Nucl Med. 1998;25:721-8.

    Not in our library10.1007/s002590050275

  96. 96.

    Schaefer NG, Hany TF, Taverna C, Seifert B, Stumpe KD, von Schulthess GK, et al. Non-Hodgkin lymphoma and Hodgkin disease: Coregistered FDG PET and CT at staging and restaging: Do we need contrast-enhanced CT? Radiology. 2004;232:823-89.

    Not in our library10.1148/radiol.2323030985

  97. 97.

    Hoffmann M, Kletter K, Diemling M, Becherer A, Pfeffel F, Petkov V, et al. Positron emission tomography with fluorine-18-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (F18-FDG) does not visualize extranodal B-cell lymphoma of the mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT)-type. Ann Oncol. 1999;10:1185-9.

    Not in our library10.1023/a:1008312726163

  98. 98.

    Schöder H, Noy A, Gönen M, Weng L, Green D, Erdi YE, et al. Intensity of 18fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in positron emission tomography distinguishes between indolent and aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:4643-51.

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2005.12.072

  99. 99.

    MacManus MP, Seymour JF, Hicks RJ. Overview of early response assessment in lymphoma with FDG-PET. Cancer Imaging. 2007;7:10-8.

    Not in our library10.1102/1470-7330.2007.0004

  100. 100.

    Joe A, Hoegerle S, Moser E. Cervical lymph node sarcoidosis as a pitfall in F-18 FDG positron emission tomography. Clin Nucl Med. 2001;26:542-3.

    Not in our library10.1097/00003072-200106000-00014

  101. 101.

    Taaleb K, Kaiser KP, Wieler H. Elevated uptake of F-18 FDG in PET scans in nonmalignant disease. Clin Nucl Med. 2000;25:939-40.

    Not in our library10.1097/00003072-200011000-00026

  102. 102.

    Sandherr M, von Schilling C, Link T, Stock K, von Bubnoff N, Peschel C, et al. Pitfalls in imaging Hodgkin’s disease with computed tomography and positron emission tomography using fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose. Ann Oncol. 2001;12:719-22.

    Not in our library10.1023/a:1011136324038

  103. 103.

    Cremerius U, Fabry U, Neuerburg J, Zimny M, Osieka R, Buell U. Positron emission tomography with 18F-FDG to detect residual disease after therapy for malignant lymphoma. Nucl Med Commun. 1998;19:1055-63.

    Not in our library10.1097/00006231-199811000-00005

  104. 104.

    Talbot JN, Haioun C, Rain JD, Meignan M, Wioland M, Misset JL, et al. [18F]-FDG positron imaging in clinical management of lymphoma patients. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2001;38:193-221.

    Not in our library10.1016/s1040-8428(01)00127-5

  105. 105.

    Hutchings M, Loft A, Hansen M, Pedersen LM, Buhl T, Jurlander J, et al. FDG-PET after two cycles of chemotherapy predicts treatment failure and progression-free survival in Hodgkin lymphoma. Blood. 2006;107:52-9.

    Not in our library10.1182/blood-2005-06-2252

  106. 106.

    Hutchings M, Mikhaeel NG, Fields PA, Nunan T, Timothy AR. Prognostic value of interim FDG-PET after two or three cycles of chemotherapy in Hodgkin lymphoma. Ann Oncol. 2005;16:1160-8.

    Not in our library10.1093/annonc/mdi200

  107. 107.

    Gallamini A, Hutchings M, Rigacci L, Specht L, Merli F, Hansen M, et al. Early interim 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography is prognostically superior to international prognostic score in advanced-stage Hodgkin’s lymphoma: A report from a joint Italian-Danish study. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:3746-52.

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2007.11.6525

  108. 108.

    Mikhaeel NG, Hutchings M, Fields PA, O’Doherty MJ, Timothy AR. FDG-PET after two to three cycles of chemotherapy predicts progression-free and overall survival in high-grade non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Ann Oncol. 2005;16:1514-23.

    Not in our library10.1093/annonc/mdi272

  109. 109.

    Haioun C, Itti E, Rahmouni A, Brice P, Rain JD, Belhadj K, et al. [18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) in aggressive lymphoma: An early prognostic tool for predicting patient outcome. Blood. 2005;106:1376-81.

    Not in our library10.1182/blood-2005-01-0272

  110. 110.

    Sherman SI. Thyroid carcinoma. Lancet. 2003;361:501-11.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0140-6736(03)12488-9

  111. 111.

    Min JJ, Chung JK, Lee YJ, Jeong JM, Lee DS, Jang JJ, et al. Relationship between expression of the sodium/iodide symporter and 131I uptake in recurrent lesions of differentiated thyroid carcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med. 2001;28:639-45.

    Not in our library

  112. 112.

    Horn J, Lock-Andersen J, Sjostrand H, Loft A. Routine use of FDG-PET scans in melanoma patients with positive sentinel node biopsy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2006;33:887-92.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00259-006-0077-7

  113. 113.

    Grünwald F, Kälicke T, Feine U, Lietzenmayer R, Scheidhauer K, Dietlein M, et al. Fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in thyroid cancer: Results of a multicentre study. Eur J Nucl Med. 1999;26:1547-52.

    Not in our library10.1007/s002590050493

  114. 114.

    Nahas Z, Goldenberg D, Fakhry C, Ewertz M, Zeiger M, Ladenson PW, et al. The role of positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the management of recurrent papillary thyroid carcinoma. Laryngoscope. 2005;115:237-43.

    Not in our library10.1097/01.mlg.0000154725.00787.00

  115. 115.

    Palmedo H, Bucerius J, Joe A, Strunk H, Hortling N, Meyka S, et al. Integrated PET/CT in differentiated thyroid cancer: Diagnostic accuracy and impact on patient management. J Nucl Med. 2006;47:616-24.

    Not in our library

  116. 116.

    Zoller M, Kohlfuerst S, Igerc I, Kresnik E, Gallowitsch HJ, Gomez I, et al. Combined PET/CT in the follow-up of differentiated thyroid carcinoma: What is the impact of each modality.? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007;34:487-95.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00259-006-0276-2

  117. 117.

    Iagaru A, Kalinyak JE, McDougall IR. F-18 FDG PET/CT in the management of thyroid cancer. Clin Nucl Med. 2007;32:690-5.

    Not in our library10.1097/rlu.0b013e318125037a

  118. 118.

    Shammas A, Degirmenci B, Mountz JM, McCook BM, Branstetter B, Bencherif B, et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT in patients with suspected recurrent or metastatic well-differentiated thyroid cancer. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:221-6.

    Not in our library

  119. 119.

    Zuijdwijk MD, Vogel WV, Corstens FH, Oyen WJ. Utility of fluorodeoxyglucose-PET in patients with differentiated thyroid carcinoma. Nucl Med Commun. 2008;29:636-41.

    Not in our library10.1097/mnm.0b013e3282f813e1

  120. 120.

    Tsakiris P, De la Rosette J. Imaging in genitourinary cancer from the urologists’ perspective. Cancer Imaging. 2007;7:84-92.

    Not in our library10.1102/1470-7330.2007.0009

  121. 121.

    Nakamoto Y, Saga T, Fujii S. Positron emission tomography application for gynecologic tumors. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2005;15:701-9.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1525-1438.2005.00245.x

  122. 122.

    Basu S, Li G, Alavi A. PET and PET-CT imaging of gynecological malignancies: Present role and future promise. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2009;9:75-96.

    Not in our library10.1586/14737140.9.1.75

  123. 123.

    Lin WC, Hung YC, Yeh LS, Kao CH, Yen RF, Shen YY. Usefulness of (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography to detect para-aortic lymph nodal metastasis in advanced cervical cancer with negative computed tomography findings. Gynecol Oncol. 2003;89:73-6.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0090-8258(03)00058-1

  124. 124.

    Belhocine T, Thille A, Fridman V, Albert A, Seidel L, Nickers P, et al. Contribution of whole-body 18FDG PET imaging in the management of cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2002;87:90-7.

    Not in our library10.1006/gyno.2002.6769

  125. 125.

    Grigsby PW, Siegel BA, Dehdashti F, Mutch DG. Posttherapy surveillance monitoring of cervical cancer by FDG-PET. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003;55:907-13.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0360-3016(02)04287-6

  126. 126.

    Bristow RE, del Carmen MG, Pannu HK, Cohade C, Zahurak ML, Fishman EK, et al. Clinically occult ovarian cancer: Patient selection for secondary cytoreductive surgery using combined PET/CT. Gynecol Oncol. 2003;90:519-28.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0090-8258(03)00336-6

  127. 127.

    Ho Shona I, Chungc D, Sawd R, Thompsond J. Imaging in cutaneous melanoma. Nucl Med Commun. 2008;29:847-76.

    Not in our library10.1097/mnm.0b013e32830439fb

  128. 128.

    Havenga K, Cobben DC, Oyen WJ, Nienhuijs S, Hoekstra HJ, Ruers TJ, et al. Fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography and sentinel lymph node biopsy in staging primary cutaneous melanoma. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2003;29:662-4.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0748-7983(03)00147-1

  129. 129.

    Gritters LS, Francis IR, Zasadny KR, Wahl RL. Initial assessment of positron emission tomography using 2-fluorine-18-fluoro-2-deoxy-Dglucose in the imaging of malignant melanoma. J Nucl Med. 1993;34:1420-7.

    Not in our library

  130. 130.

    Bastiaannet E, Oyen WJ, Meijer S, Hoekstra OS, Wobbes T, Jager PL, et al. Impact of [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography on surgical management of melanoma patients. Br J Surg. 2006;93:243-9.

    Not in our library10.1002/bjs.5174

  131. 131.

    Eigtved A, Andersson AP, Dahlstrom K, Rabol A, Jensen M, Holm S, et al. Use of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the detection of silent metastases from malignant melanoma. Eur J Nucl Med. 2000;27:70-5.

    Not in our library10.1007/pl00006666

  132. 132.

    Jadvar H, Johnson DL, Segall GM. The effect of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography on the management of cutaneous malignant melanoma. Clin Nucl Med. 2000;25:48-51.

    Not in our library10.1097/00003072-200001000-00011

  133. 133.

    Fulham M, Kelley B, Ramshaw J, Scott A. Impact of FDG PET on the management of patients with suspected or proven metastatic melanoma prior to surgery: A prospective, multi-centre study as part of the Australian PET Data Collection Project. Paper presented at: 54th Annual Meeting of the Society of Nuclear Medicine, Washington, DC. 2007.

    Not in our library

  134. 134.

    Chen W, Silverman D. Advances in evaluation of primary brain tumors. Semin Nucl Med. 2008;38:240-50.

    Not in our library10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2008.02.005

Cited by papers we hold 5

Reads

Read by people on this page

None yet.

Checked or read by AI through naulon

None yet.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.

Are you an author?

Is this your paper?

Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.