The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Standards for PET Image Acquisition and Quantitative Data Analysis
Open accessAbstract
Quantitative (18)F-FDG PET is increasingly being recognized as an important tool for diagnosis, determination of prognosis, and response monitoring in oncology. However, PET quantification with, for example, standardized uptake values (SUVs) is affected by many technical and physiologic factors. As a result, some of the variations in the literature on SUV-based patient outcomes are explained by differences in (18)F-FDG PET study methods. Various technical and clinical studies have been performed to understand the factors affecting PET quantification. On the basis of the results of those studies, several recommendations and guidelines have been proposed with the aims of improving the image quality and the quantitative accuracy of (18)F-FDG PET studies. In this contribution, an overview of recommendations and guidelines for quantitative (18)F-FDG PET studies in oncology is provided. Special attention is given to the rationale underlying certain recommendations and to some of the differences in various guidelines.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Cites
New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1)
Eisenhauer, E. A., Therasse, P., Bogaerts, J., Schwartz, L. H., Sargent, D., Ford, R., Dancey, J., Arbuck, S., Gwyther, S., Mooney, M., et al. (2009) · European Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026 · Cited by 29,534
Cited by
FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0
Boellaard, R., Delgado-Bolton, R., Oyen, W. J. G., Giammarile, F., Tatsch, K., Eschner, W., Verzijlbergen, F. J., Barrington, S. F., Pike, L. C., Weber, W. A., et al. (2015) · European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging · doi:10.1007/s00259-014-2961-x · Cited by 3,303
Self-citationRadiomics: the process and the challenges
Kumar, V., Gu, Y., Basu, S., Berglund, A., Eschrich, S. A., Schabath, M. B., Forster, K., Aerts, H. J. W. L., Dekker, A., Fenstermacher, D., et al. (2012) · Magnetic Resonance Imaging · doi:10.1016/j.mri.2012.06.010 · Cited by 2,258
“PET–CT Quantitative imaging with 2-deoxy-2-[(18)F]fluoro-D-glucose (18-FDG) PET scans is a challenge because it not only requires calibration of the scanner and standardization of the scan protocol but also requires the patient and staff to adhere to a strict patient protocol [14,15].”
MethodKinahan, P. E., & Fletcher, J. W. (2010) · Seminars in Ultrasound, CT and MRI · doi:10.1053/j.sult.2010.10.001 · Cited by 631
Cavo, M., Terpos, E., Nanni, C., Moreau, P., Lentzsch, S., Zweegman, S., Hillengass, J., Engelhardt, M., Usmani, S. Z., Vesole, D. H., et al. (2017) · The Lancet Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(17)30189-4 · Cited by 544
Aide, N., Lasnon, C., Veit-Haibach, P., Sera, T., Sattler, B., & Boellaard, R. (2017) · European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging · doi:10.1007/s00259-017-3740-2 · Cited by 344
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Boellaard, R.
- Venue
- Journal of Nuclear Medicine
- Publisher
- Society of Nuclear Medicine
- Published
- 2009-04-20
- Volume
- 50
- Issue
- Suppl 1
- Pages
- 11S-20S
- ISSN
- 0161-5505 (ISSN-L)
- 2159-662X
- OpenAlex
- W2143967388
- Cited by
- 902
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 31.71
- 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: Standards for PET Image Acquisition and Quantitative Data Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2967/jnumed.108.057182
- The paper
- Boellaard, R. (2009). Standards for PET Image Acquisition and Quantitative Data Analysis. Journal of Nuclear Medicine. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.108.057182
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.
