Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,335

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Use of Positron Emission Tomography for Response Assessment of Lymphoma: Consensus of the Imaging Subcommittee of International Harmonization Project in Lymphoma

Open access
Juweid, Malik E., Stroobants, Sigrid, Hoekstra, Otto S., Mottaghy, Felix M., Dietlein, Markus, Guermazi, Ali, Wiseman, Gregory A., Kostakoglu, Lale, Scheidhauer, Klemens, Buck, Andreas, Naumann, Ralph, Spaepen, Karoline, Hicks, Rodney J., Weber, Wolfgang A., Reske, Sven N., Schwaiger, Markus, Schwartz, Lawrence H., Zijlstra, Josee M., Siegel, Barry A., Cheson, Bruce D.·2007·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: To develop guidelines for performing and interpreting positron emission tomography (PET) imaging for treatment assessment in patients with lymphoma both in clinical practice and in clinical trials. Methods: An International Harmonization Project (IHP) was convened to discuss standardization of clinical trial parameters in lymphoma. An imaging subcommittee developed consensus recommendations based on published PET literature and the collective expertise of its members in the use of PET in lymphoma. Only recommendations subsequently endorsed by all IHP subcommittees were adopted. Recommendations: PET after completion of therapy should be performed at least 3 weeks, and preferably at 6 to 8 weeks, after chemotherapy or chemoimmunotherapy, and 8 to 12 weeks after radiation or chemoradiotherapy. Visual assessment alone is adequate for interpreting PET findings as positive or negative when assessing response after completion of therapy. Mediastinal blood pool activity is recommended as the reference background activity to define PET positivity for a residual mass ≥ 2 cm in greatest transverse diameter, regardless of its location. A smaller residual mass or a normal sized lymph node (ie, ≤ 1 × 1 cm in diameter) should be considered positive if its activity is above that of the surrounding background. Specific criteria for defining PET positivity in the liver, spleen, lung, and bone marrow are also proposed. Use of attenuation-corrected PET is strongly encouraged. Use of PET for treatment monitoring during a course of therapy should only be done in a clinical trial or as part of a prospective registry.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1200/jco.2006.08.2305

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 1,335

Metadata

Authors
Juweid, M. E., Stroobants, S., Hoekstra, O. S., Mottaghy, F. M., Dietlein, M., Guermazi, A., Wiseman, G. A., Kostakoglu, L., Scheidhauer, K., Buck, A., Naumann, R., Spaepen, K., Hicks, R. J., Weber, W. A., Reske, S. N., Schwaiger, M., Schwartz, L. H., Zijlstra, J. M., Siegel, B. A., & Cheson, B. D.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2007-02-10
Volume
25
Issue
5
Pages
571-578
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2142724147
Cited by
1,335
References
0
FWCI
76.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Use of Positron Emission Tomography for Response Assessment of Lymphoma: Consensus of the Imaging Subcommittee of International Harmonization Project in Lymphoma. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2006.08.2305
The paper
Juweid, M. E., Stroobants, S., Hoekstra, O. S., Mottaghy, F. M., Dietlein, M., Guermazi, A., Wiseman, G. A., Kostakoglu, L., Scheidhauer, K., Buck, A., Naumann, R., Spaepen, K., Hicks, R. J., Weber, W. A., Reske, S. N., Schwaiger, M., Schwartz, L. H., Zijlstra, J. M., Siegel, B. A., & Cheson, B. D. (2007). Use of Positron Emission Tomography for Response Assessment of Lymphoma: Consensus of the Imaging Subcommittee of International Harmonization Project in Lymphoma. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2006.08.2305

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.