The DOI matches its Crossref record; 132 of the 157 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
From RECIST to PERCIST: Evolving Considerations for PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors
Open accessAbstract
UNLABELLED: The purpose of this article is to review the status and limitations of anatomic tumor response metrics including the World Health Organization (WHO) criteria, the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), and RECIST 1.1. This article also reviews qualitative and quantitative approaches to metabolic tumor response assessment with (18)F-FDG PET and proposes a draft framework for PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (PERCIST), version 1.0. METHODS: PubMed searches, including searches for the terms RECIST, positron, WHO, FDG, cancer (including specific types), treatment response, region of interest, and derivative references, were performed. Abstracts and articles judged most relevant to the goals of this report were reviewed with emphasis on limitations and strengths of the anatomic and PET approaches to treatment response assessment. On the basis of these data and the authors' experience, draft criteria were formulated for PET tumor response to treatment. RESULTS: Approximately 3,000 potentially relevant references were screened. Anatomic imaging alone using standard WHO, RECIST, and RECIST 1.1 criteria is widely applied but still has limitations in response assessments. For example, despite effective treatment, changes in tumor size can be minimal in tumors such as lymphomas, sarcoma, hepatomas, mesothelioma, and gastrointestinal stromal tumor. CT tumor density, contrast enhancement, or MRI characteristics appear more informative than size but are not yet routinely applied. RECIST criteria may show progression of tumor more slowly than WHO criteria. RECIST 1.1 criteria (assessing a maximum of 5 tumor foci, vs. 10 in RECIST) result in a higher complete response rate than the original RECIST criteria, at least in lymph nodes. Variability appears greater in assessing progression than in assessing response. Qualitative and quantitative approaches to (18)F-FDG PET response assessment have been applied and require a consistent PET methodology to allow quantitative assessments. Statistically significant changes in tumor standardized uptake value (SUV) occur in careful test-retest studies of high-SUV tumors, with a change of 20% in SUV of a region 1 cm or larger in diameter; however, medically relevant beneficial changes are often associated with a 30% or greater decline. The more extensive the therapy, the greater the decline in SUV with most effective treatments. Important components of the proposed PERCIST criteria include assessing normal reference tissue values in a 3-cm-diameter region of interest in the liver, using a consistent PET protocol, using a fixed small region of interest about 1 cm(3) in volume (1.2-cm diameter) in the most active region of metabolically active tumors to minimize statistical variability, assessing tumor size, treating SUV lean measurements in the 1 (up to 5 optional) most metabolically active tumor focus as a continuous variable, requiring a 30% decline in SUV for "response," and deferring to RECIST 1.1 in cases that do not have (18)F-FDG avidity or are technically unsuitable. Criteria to define progression of tumor-absent new lesions are uncertain but are proposed. CONCLUSION: Anatomic imaging alone using standard WHO, RECIST, and RECIST 1.1 criteria have limitations, particularly in assessing the activity of newer cancer therapies that stabilize disease, whereas (18)F-FDG PET appears particularly valuable in such cases. The proposed PERCIST 1.0 criteria should serve as a starting point for use in clinical trials and in structured quantitative clinical reporting. Undoubtedly, subsequent revisions and enhancements will be required as validation studies are undertaken in varying diseases and treatments.
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“SUVmax of normal background tissues, including the liver and mediastinal blood pool are commonly used as references to define the disease and assess tumor response to therapy.[7]”
From Intrapatient variability of 18F-FDG uptake in normal tissues (2022) · cites this paper as [7]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“However, it has been demonstrated that inter-rater agreement in response assessment with [18F]FDG-PET in non-small cell lung cancer or metastatic breast cancer can be considerably improved through the use of the target lesion SULpeak (PERCIST 1.0 criteria) in comparison with a subjective assessment [194,214,215].”
From Influences on PET Quantification and Interpretation (2022) · cites this paper as [194]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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 2×
“If tumors other than these 5 progress unequivocally, progression has occurred (39,40).”
BackgroundNew Guidelines to Evaluate the Response to Treatment in Solid Tumors
Therasse, P., Arbuck, S. G., Eisenhauer, E. A., Wanders, J., Kaplan, R. S., Rubinstein, L., Verweij, J., Van Glabbeke, M., van Oosterom, A. T., Christian, M. C., et al. (2000) · JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/92.3.205 · Cited by 15,660
Sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma
Llovet, J. M., Ricci, S., Mazzaferro, V., Hilgard, P., Gane, E., Blanc, J.-F., de Oliveira, A. C., Santoro, A., Raoul, J.-L., Forner, A., et al. (2008) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa0708857 · Cited by 13,097
Sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.
Spinzi, G., & Paggi, S. (2008) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmc081780 · Cited by 7,303 · cited 2×
“Similar findings of prolonged life, with limited antitumor size response by RECIST, have been seen in hepatomas treated by sorafenib (44,45).”
BackgroundRevised response criteria for malignant lymphoma.
Cheson, B. D., Pfistner, B., Juweid, M., Gascoyne, R., Specht, L., Horning, S., Coiffier, B., Fisher, R. I., Hagenbeek, A., Zucca, E., et al. (2007) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2006.09.2403 · Cited by 4,537 · cited 5×
“Progression in the lungs, particularly in the presence of potential inflammation or infection while a patient is on treatment, should be viewed with great caution, as discussed in the revised response criteria in lymphoma (32,33).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialCheson, B. D., Horning, S., Coiffier, B., Shipp, M., Fisher, R. I., Connors, J. M., Lister, T., Vose, J., Grillo-López, A., Hagenbeek, A., et al. (1999) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.1999.17.4.1244 · Cited by 3,210
Ishiwata, T., Cho, K., Ishiwata, S., Fujii, T., Kawahara, K., Kudo, M., Uchida, E., Tajiri, T., & Naito, Z. (2005) · doi:10.1097/01.mpa.0000193687.52588.d4 · Cited by 2,420
Young, H. E., Baum, R. P., Cremerius, U., Herholz, K., Hoekstra, O. S., Lammertsma, A. A., Pruim, J., & Price, P. (1999) · European Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1016/s0959-8049(99)00229-4 · Cited by 1,716
Choi, H., Charnsangavej, C., Faria, S., Macapinlac, H., Burgess, M., Patel, S. R., Chen, L. L., Podoloff, D., & Benjamin, R. (2007) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2006.07.3049 · Cited by 1,508 · cited 7×
“Additional anatomic characteristics of GIST, such as the development of mural nodules, but not necessarily with tumor growth because of the predominantly cystic nature of the tumors, are indicative of progression and of a poor outcome (48,49).”
BackgroundInfluentialJuweid, M., Stroobants, S., Hoekstra, O., Mottaghy, F., Dietlein, M., Guermazi, A., Wiseman, G., Kostakoglu, L., Scheidhauer, K., Buck, A., et al. (2007) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2006.08.2305 · Cited by 1,377 · cited 4×
“Progression in the lungs, particularly in the presence of potential inflammation or infection while a patient is on treatment, should be viewed with great caution, as discussed in the revised response criteria in lymphoma (32,33).”
BackgroundInfluential
Research works printed but not linked: 23
- 1981, Cancer Clin Trials., 4, 451
- 1988, J Nucl Med., 29, 421
- 2006, J Nucl Med., 47, 901
- 2007, J Nucl Med., 48, 19S
- 2006, J Nucl Med., 47, 1059
- 10.1002/cncr.24060 · DOI
- 2007, J Nucl Med., 48, 36S
- 2005, J Nucl Med., 46, 983
- 2006, J Nucl Med., 47, 14
- 1990, J Nucl Med., 31, 369
- 2004, J Nucl Med., 45, 1519
- 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-06-2030 · DOI
- 2004, J Am Coll Surg., 199, 1
- 1999, J Nucl Med., 40, 1771
- 1995, J Nucl Med., 36, 252
- 2004, J Nucl Med., 45, 784
- 1994, J Nucl Med., 35, 1308
- 10.1200/JCO.2006.06.8999 · DOI
- 2006, J Nucl Med., 47, 603
- 1993, J Nucl Med., 34, 773
- 2004, J Nucl Med., 45, 17
- 2001, J Nucl Med., 42, 1605
- 2001, J Nucl Med., 42, 1596
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 901–1,000 of 1,041
Wollnitza, S., Ventura, D., Teichert, M., Freisleben, F., Boyadzhiev, H., Seifert, R., Amon, M., Barbato, F., Scholz, J., Beck, M., et al. (2026) · European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging · doi:10.1007/s00259-026-07958-4
“For standardization in accordance with current guideline recommendations, PER - CIST threshold (1.5 × liver SUVmean + 2 SD) was used to identify elevated FDG-positive areas, followed by SUVmax-based volumetric segmentation using a 41% threshold of each individual selected lesion [19, 20 ].”
InfluentialSingh, S., Varshney, V., Rai, A., Selvakumar, B., Varshney, P., Agarwal, L., Soni, S., Birda, C. L., & Agarwal, A. (2026) · Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.surg.2026.110191
Kheruka, S., Al-Rashdi, S., Al-Maymani, N., Raii, T., Al-Makhmari, N., Al-Saidi, H., Al-Balushi, A., Jain, A., Usmani, S., Riyami, K. A., et al. (2026) · Indian Journal of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.25259/ijnm_35_2026
Avcı, F., Tunç, A., Erkek, B. K., Özsaran, A., Serin, G., Zekioğlu, O., & Burak, Z. (2026) · Molecular Imaging and Radionuclide Therapy · doi:10.4274/mirt.galenos.2026.48108
“The metabolic data obtained from 18 F-FDG PET/CT can help guide more accurate and personalized treatment decisions, ultimately supporting cancer management and improving patient outcomes (7).”
Pradère, C., Rasilla, J. M., Matilla, B. N., Soares, P. M. M., Díaz, K. V., Solesio, I. G., Gallardo, A. G., Caballero, M. P. E., & Casanovas, M. M. (2026) · Revista Española de Medicina Nuclear e Imagen Molecular · doi:10.1016/j.remn.2026.500323
Fan, Y., Aji, A., Feng, T., Jiang, L.-B., & Ta, D. (2026) · Ultrasonics · doi:10.1016/j.ultras.2026.108177
Kassas, M., Léger, M.-A., Poenaru, R., Tahmi, D., Zeiter, R. L., Shagera, Q., Abadi, Y., Karfis, I., Flamen, P., & Artigas, C. (2026) · The EANM Journal · doi:10.1016/j.eanmj.2026.100234
Feng, Y.-R., Tang, Y.-W., Liang, Y.-X., Lv, C., Shi, T.-Y., & Wang, M. (2026) · IEEE International Joint Conference on Neural Network · doi:10.1109/ijcnn69854.2026.11729861
“In PET image analysis, a stable and reliable fully automated SUV reference value calculation method is crucial for accurately assessing metabolic activity in whole-body tumor lesions and monitoring treatment responses [2-3].”
Zhang, X.-Y., Zhang, X.-J., Zhang, Z.-T., Huang, X.-Y., Xu, P.-P., Jiang, C., Miao, Y., Guo, R., & Li, B. (2026) · European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging · doi:10.1007/s00259-026-07959-3
“Furthermore, a multi-omics study [25] performed in a large ENKTL cohort revealed distinct molecular subtypes, designated as TSIM (tumor-suppressor/immune-modulator), MB (MGA-BRDT), and HEA (HDAC9-EP300-ARID1A).”
Kahraman, E., Unal, O., Taşkaynatan, H., Ozdemir, O., Budak, E., & Selver, M. (2026) · BMC Medical Imaging · doi:10.1186/s12880-026-02463-4
Takamori, S., Tane, S., Nishikubo, M., Watanabe, T., Nomura, K., Hamada, A., Takamori, S., Katsumata, S., & Shiono, S. (2026) · General Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery · doi:10.1007/s11748-026-02319-2
“To standardize evaluation of metabolic response, the PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (PERCIST) classify responses based on quantitative changes in FDG uptake, particularly standardized uptake values normalized to lean body mass [26].”
Li, Y.-T., Endo, H., Hirata, K., Takenaka, J., Tang, M., Watanabe, S., Kimura, R., & Kudo, K. (2026) · Japanese Journal of Radiology · doi:10.1007/s11604-026-02006-5
“The total metabolic tumor volume (TMTV) indicates the metabolically active volume of tumors assessed using whole-body FDG-PET/ CT [7].”
Kar, R., Mutsuddy, P., Mandal, T., Akhter, P., Shil, S., Siddique, M., & Begum, S. (2026) · Bangladesh Journal of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.3329/bjnm.v29i1.89283
Wu, Y., Hu, B., Liu, D., & Meng, H. (2026) · Frontiers in Oncology · doi:10.3389/fonc.2026.1730878
Hashimoto, K., Kaira, K., Imai, H., Mouri, A., Shiono, A., Miura, Y., Yamaguchi, O., Kawasaki, T., Kagamu, H., & Kuji, I. (2026) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-026-50372-x
“The nutritional index was calculated using the prognostic nutritional index (PNI) formula: PNI = 10 × albumin (g/dL) + 0.005 × lymphocyte count 19 .”
InfluentialUncertainty‐aware gamma interaction localization and reconstruction in PET
Thull, J., Remennik, J., Schug, D., Weissler, B., Kuhl, Y., & Schulz, V. (2026) · Medical Physics (Lancaster) · doi:10.1002/mp.70471
Xiao, B.-B., Li, X.-L., Gu, L.-W., Liu, C., Yu, X., Zhang, X., Tang, L.-Q., Huang, Y., & Chen, W.-H. (2026) · European Journal of Radiology · doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2026.112958
Applications and research progress of PET/CT in dynamic monitoring of immunotherapy in melanoma
Xie, L.-L., Shi, D., Huang, J., Mao, W.-J., Zheng, S.-L., Wei, C.-Y., Cheng, D.-F., & Gu, J.-Y. (2026) · Journal of Translational Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12967-026-08140-y
“Significant improvements were introduced in PERCIST 1.0 [38]: it adopts standardized uptake value normalized to lean body mass (SUL) instead of SUVbw to minimize interference from body fat, and introduces the SULpeak concept—defined as the average SUL within a 1.2 cm-diameter spherical volume…”
InfluentialAkay, M., Glendenning, J., Tovey, H., Tsai, Y.-T., Graham, R. A., Carpenter, E., Kakkassery, H., Alaguthurai, T., Finneran, L., Roxanis, I., et al. (2026) · Clinical Cancer Research · doi:10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-26-0041
“However EORTC criteria (13) defined PET response as a 15% SUV max reduction after 1 cycle, whereas PERCIST guidelines (14) advocate a stricter 30% SUV peak reduction, and more recent early-stage breast cancer studies suggest thresholds of 40% to 77% (12, 15–17).”
Yu, H., Li, C.-W., Jin, F., Jiang, W., Sui, Y.-D., Zeng, L., Wang, Y.-L., & Fang, N. (2026) · Journal of computer assisted tomography · doi:10.1097/rct.0000000000001872
Niedermaier, B., Bochtler, T., Eichhorn, F., Griffo, R., Klotz, L. V., Allgäuer, M., Stenzinger, A., Bischoff, H., Schneider, M. A., Christopoulos, P., et al. (2026) · International Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1002/ijc.70508
Choroidal Metastasis: An Uncommon Initial Manifestation of Lung Adenocarcinoma
Vignesh, H., Goyal, H., Tumulu, S. K., Ganesan, P., & Halanaik, D. (2026) · Indian Journal of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.25259/ijnm_46_25
Sathekge, T., Kabunda, J., Chalwe, J., Kgatle, M., Cleeren, F., & Sathekge, M. (2026) · Clinical and translational imaging · doi:10.1007/s40336-026-00765-9
“…evidence is available, TROP2-targeted PET should be regarded as a promising investigational tool rather than an established companion diagnostic in TNBC. evaluation credible—an approach that can be repurposed for target-dynamics endpoints once tracer-specific perfor - mance is established [54 ].”
InfluentialSun, Y.-H., An, R., Yang, R.-X., Pang, X., Chen, X.-S., Wang, M.-J., Zhao, J., Chen, X.-L., Fu, Q., Liu, Y.-N., et al. (2026) · EJNMMI Research · doi:10.1186/s13550-026-01424-w
“Specifically, after two cycles of neoadjuvant therapy, all patients showed a significant reduction in uptake compared to baseline, consistent with the treatment efficacy criteria defined by PERCIST 1.0 [23].”
InfluentialKermanshah, A., Ozturk, A., Saleh, M.-W., Alvo, J., Phillibert, Z., Thornton, L. M., Datta, J., & Alessandrino, F. (2026) · European Journal of Radiology · doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2026.112858
Guglielmo, P., Carnaghi, C., Bertuzzi, A., Laffi, A., Damiani, S., Riva, U. C., Olivieri, M., Marenco, M., & Evangelista, L. (2026) · Cancers · doi:10.3390/cancers18081267
Multicenter evaluation of commercial AI for [18F]FDG PET/CT lesion detection
Gambiez, M., Palard-Novello, X., Guéry, C., Marchal, E., Dercle, L., Morland, D., Meyer, M.-E., Humbert, O., & Girard, A. (2026) · Annals of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.1007/s12149-026-02199-9
“M3 followed a PERCIST-like strategy: an automatically placed 14-cm³ (30-mm diameter) hepatic VOI in unin - volved parenchyma (relocated if initially placed in a lesion) defined the reference, and lesions were identified using 1.5 × liver SUVmean + 2 SD [ 10 ].”
InfluentialYang, J., Cheng, Z.-Z., & Kou, Y. (2026) · Frontiers in Medicine · doi:10.3389/fmed.2026.1809312
Ashraf, S., White, M., Haghighi, N., Siva, S., Byrne, K., Liu, M., & David, S. (2026) · Frontiers in Oncology · doi:10.3389/fonc.2026.1641876
“Speci fi c modi fi cations to treatment planning are shown in Figures 3, 4.”
Nikulin, P., Hoberück, S., Apostolova, I., Maus, J., Hüttmann, A., Duhrsen, U., Kroschinsky, F., Kotzerke, J., von Bonin, M., Bundschuh, R. A., et al. (2026) · European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging · doi:10.1007/s00259-026-07810-9
“The most prominent solution of this kind is the PET-Assisted Reporting System (PARS, Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc., Malvern, PA, USA), which combines the CNN proposed in [19] and the Multi-Foci Segmentation (MFS) algorithm aligned with PERCIST recommendations [20].”
Çağdaş, B., Çağdaş, E. K., Yüksel, A. Ö., San, H., & Yildirim, N. (2026) · Annals of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.1007/s12149-026-02193-1
“Guided by these established quantitative response paradigms, a ± 30% SUVmax threshold was pragmatically adopted for lesion-level response classification to enable standardized evaluation of heterogeneous metastatic disease [ 12 – 14 ].”
InfluentialEbert, N., Rosar, F., Burgard, C., Bartholomä, M. D., Maus, S., Hein, C., Blickle, A., Ezziddin, S., & Khreish, F. (2026) · EJNMMI Research · doi:10.1186/s13550-026-01408-w
“The PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (PERCIST) version 1.0 [13] were slightly modified: PR was defined as a reduction in TLP or MTV > 30%, PD as an increase exceeding 30% or the appearance of new metastases, and SD as a change ranging between − 30% and + 30%.”
InfluentialBahçecioğlu, A. B., & Buyukasik, Y. (2026) · Acta medica · doi:10.32552/2026.actamedica.1245
“…mastocytosis [12] Cheson criteria for lymphomatoid granulomatosis [ 13] Positron emission tomography (PET) imaging for response assessment in ECD [14 ] Treatment-related adverse events were classified according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), version 4.0 [ 15].”
InfluentialDatta, A., Spiller, W., Mistry, H., Julyan, P., O’Connor, J. P. B., Salem, A., Faivre-Finn, C., & Manoharan, P. (2026) · European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging · doi:10.1007/s00259-026-07812-7
“Regions of interest were drawn around all pulmonary lesions and lymph nodes using an automatic SUV threshold of 2.5, consistent with commonly used PERCIST-based approaches [22 ].”
InfluentialTumor metrics imaging core labs: primer for radiologists
Gurudu, R., Bansal, D., Chauhan, A., & Tirumani, S. (2026) · Abdominal Radiology · doi:10.1007/s00261-026-05439-8
Aliyev, V., Güren, A., Guliyev, M., Birsin, Z., Günaltılı, M., Fidan, M., Çerme, E., Abbasov, H., Cebeci, S., Işık, S., et al. (2026) · Medicina · doi:10.3390/medicina62030488
Eide, H., Grut, H., Jebsen, P., Kyte, J., & Bratland, Å. (2026) · Radiotherapy and Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2026.111514
Wu, J. T., Beckmann, D., Miller, S., Lee, A., Theng, E., Altmayer, S., Chang, K., Kersting, D., Otani, T., Dashevsky, B., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.00162
Meng, Z., Lin, M., Chu, T.-C., Zhu, D.-D., Peng, L., Sun, M.-X., Peng, S., Feng, G., & Gao, X. (2026) · Journal of computer assisted tomography · doi:10.1097/rct.0000000000001849
Donswijk, M. L., Ettema, R. H., Wondergem, M., Cheung, Z. J., van der Poel, H. G., Oprea‐Lager, D. E., & Vis, A. N. (2026) · European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging · doi:10.1007/s00259-025-07757-3
“Parameters assessed within this VOI were SUVmax and SUVpeak, defined as the maxi - mum standardized uptake value (SUV) and the 1cm3 with the average highest SUV within the VOI, respectively [ 13].”
Hügle, M. J., Patt, M., Dierks, A., Steinestel, J., & Lapa, C. (2026) · Clinical Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.1097/rlu.0000000000006364
Bildbasierte Response-Kriterien in der Onkologie
Savic, L., Westermann, J., Kurreck, A., & Hamm, C. (2026) · Die Radiologie · doi:10.1007/s00117-026-01574-x
Eroglu, I., Aydos, U., Ateş, Y., Küçükali, S. B., Akdoğan, O., Üner, A., Gürler, F., Özdemir, N., Özet, A., & Yazıcı, O. (2026) · Clinical and Translational Oncology · doi:10.1007/s12094-026-04221-y
“Key features of PERCIST include the use of SUL (standardized uptake value adjusted for lean body mass) to assess tumor response and the recommendation to evaluate up to five lesions, with a maximum of two per organ [10, 11].”
Wang, F., Guo, R., Meng, X.-X., Su, H., Zhou, X., Liu, Y., Li, Z.-W., Yang, Z., & Li, N. (2026) · Academic Radiology · doi:10.1016/j.acra.2026.01.056
Long, Q., Tian, Y., Hu, Y., Xu, Z., Zhang, W., Xu, S.-S., Liu, W., Jin, J., & Peng, Y.-S. (2026) · EJNMMI Physics · doi:10.1186/s40658-026-00841-z
Henrar, R., Cysouw, M., Palard-Novello, X., Schwarte, L. A., Raijmakers, P., de Geus-Oei, L. D., Vahrmeijer, A., Kazemier, G., Windhorst, A., Boellaard, R., et al. (2026) · European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging · doi:10.1007/s00259-025-07738-6
“…magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)) to assess treatment response after chemotherapy is mostly attributed to the difficulty to differentiate fibrosis For [ 18 F]FDG PET imaging, the PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumours (PERCIST) were developed to standardise the metabolic response monitoring [35].”
PET/CT Imaging in Melanoma: Review of Current Evidence and Clinical Applications
Giachetti, V. A. M.-B., Serur, I. P., Barbosa, F. D. G., Cidale, B. M. A., Katz, G., & Munhoz, R. (2026) · Brazilian Journal of Oncology · doi:10.1055/s-0046-1824762
“Due to the unconventional or delayed anatomic tumor responses to immunotherapy, 21 modi fi ed response criteria, such as PET response criteria in solid tumors (PER-CIST) 70 and immunotherapy-modi fi ed PERCIST (iPER-CIST), 71,72 have been developed to evaluate metabolic response accurately.”
Future directions of image-guided thermal ablation in colorectal cancer lung oligometastases
Wang, Y.-Y., Zhang, C., Zhang, Q.-B., Le, X.-Y., Feng, J.-B., & Li, C.-M. (2026) · World Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.3748/wjg.v32.i2.114727
Lesion conspicuity by size in [18F]FDG long-axial field-of-view PET/CT
Pyka, T., Weissenrieder, L., Zeimpekis, K. G., Sari, H., Caobelli, F., Chung, K. J., Nardo, L., Rominger, A., & Mingels, C. (2026) · EJNMMI Research · doi:10.1186/s13550-026-01374-3
“A 10-mm diameter spherical VOI in the right liver lobe characterized the background activity [20].”
Liu, Y., Tang, R., Yang, H., Tang, S.-J., Chen, Y., Huang, Z.-W., & Qiu, L. (2026) · EJNMMI Research · doi:10.1186/s13550-025-01370-z
“Notably, SUL has been recommended by the PERCIST criteria for treatment response assessment [10], particularly in populations with significant weight fluctuations.”
Quantitative Imaging Advances in HPV-Positive Oropharyngeal Carcinoma
Farrell, D., Bahig, H., Khor, R., Kowalski, L., de Bree, R., Eisbruch, A., Bollen, H., López, F., Sreeram, M., Guntinas-Lichius, O., et al. (2026) · Cancers · doi:10.3390/cancers18020303
“Texture features add signals beyond MTV/TLG, and PERCIST-aligned longitudinal endpoints [17] plus PET-NECK trial evidence support [5] PET-guided post-chemoradiotherapy (CRT) management.”
COMPARISON OF 18F-FDG PET/CT DATA WİTH TYPE 2 DIABETES AND OBESITY IN BREAST CANCER
Babacan, Ö. U., & Hasbek, Z. (2025) · Kırıkkale Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi · doi:10.24938/kutfd.1696624
Chanchou, M., Mouret-reynier, M., Molnar, I., Deshayes, E., D'Hondt, V., Bourahla, K., Petit, T., Bardet, S., Levy, C., Morel, O., et al. (2025) · Breast Cancer Research · doi:10.1186/s13058-025-02156-w
“Others ∆ SUVmax thresholds were also tested in this exploratory work, according to those used in other studies [5, 16, 17].”
TiDE-Net: A time-guided dual-encoder ResUNet for Positron Emission Tomography (PET) image denoising
Tan, B., Xue, Y., Bi, L., Fulham, M. J., & Kim, J. (2025) · Comput. Methods Programs Biomed. · doi:10.1016/j.cmpb.2025.109200
Summer, P., Bulmer, N., Prabhu, S., Gallon, N., Larson, R., Maus, M. V., Mahmood, U., & Heidari, P. (2025) · Diagnostics · doi:10.3390/diagnostics15233058
Kalen, J. D., Tatum, J. L., Jacobs, P. M., & Doroshow, J. H. (2025) · Journal of Translational Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12967-025-07475-2
“…evaluated many other parameters that affect quantitative analyses, such as differences in the ROI [26], image acquisition, reconstruction, and effect of image noise [14, 24, 27–30] and have implemented quantitative techniques such as SUV peak [6], max, or mean [22] to account for those parameters.”
InfluentialTRAECR: A Tool for Preprocessing Positron Emission Tomography Imaging for Statistical Modeling
Ambekar, A., Zielinski, R., & Eloyan, A. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.04458
“This imaging modality provides critical insights on tumor metabolism, facilitating the differentiation between benign and malignant lesions, evaluating treatment response, and early detection of disease recurrence (Wahl et al., 2009).”
Preet, K., Sood, A., Satapathy, S., Goyal, S., Aggarwal, P., Singh, H., Mavuduru, R., Prakash, G., Purohit, P., Dhiman, P., et al. (2025) · Clinical Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.1097/rlu.0000000000006147
Bildbasierte Response-Kriterien in der Onkologie
Savic, L. J., Westermann, J., Kurreck, A., & Hamm, C. (2025) · Die Onkologie · doi:10.1007/s00761-025-01850-w
Djaileb, L., Farolfi, A., Rauscher, I., Haghighatian, M., Mercier, A., Fendler, W., Hadaschik, B., Herrmann, K., Solnes, L., Rettig, M. B., et al. (2025) · Journal of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.2967/jnumed.125.270239
Cui, F.-B., Sun, X., Shi, J.-M., Tang, W., Wang, H., Sun, P., Ding, D.-Q., Cao, Q., Zhang, F., Cao, X., et al. (2025) · Clinical and Translational Imaging · doi:10.1007/s40336-025-00730-y
Cheng, E. Y., Freire, A. P. E., Manivel, J., Froelich, J., Weigel, B. J., Clohisy, D., Ogilvie, C., Evans, R., Cho, L., Dusenbery, K., et al. (2025) · Cancer · doi:10.1002/cncr.70129
Primary and secondary activity standards for 89Zr.
Cessna, J. T., Bergeron, D. E., Broder, B. A., Fitzgerald, R., Pibida, L., Wilde, J., & Zimmerman, B. (2025) · Applied Radiation and Isotopes · doi:10.1016/j.apradiso.2025.112240
Ho, L., Braat, M., Bol, G., Smits, M., Lam, M., & Braat, A. (2025) · EJNMMI Research · doi:10.1186/s13550-025-01320-9
“The SUL mean , in accordance with PERCIST 1.0 [12], was calculated for all VOIs.”
InfluentialSathish, S., Sethi, P., Neelakandan, V., Halanaik, D., Ganesan, S., Jinkala, S., & Gundapuneedi, B. S. (2025) · Advances in Radiation Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.adro.2025.101898
Lorenzini, T., Petzold, J., Hein, S., Weber, W., & Eiber, M. (2025) · Tumordiagnostik & Therapie · doi:10.1055/a-2707-1411
“Im Verlauf der Therapie werden deshalb alle Follow-up Scans stets zum Baseline-Scan vor Therapieinitiierung verglichen, unabhängig von der Zahl der zwischenzeitlich erfolgten Scans und eines eventuellen Therapieansprechens.”
Grambozov, B., Zamani-Siahkali, N., Stana, M., Beheshti, M., Ruznic, E., Iskakova, Z., Karner, J., Zellinger, B., Gerum, S., Roeder, F., et al. (2025) · Biomedicines · doi:10.3390/biomedicines13081866
“However, SULpeak, which represents the highest uptake voxel within a standardized spherical region and has already been established as a treatment response parameter in the PERCIST (PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors) criteria [9], could serve as an even more suitable imaging biomarker.”
Zhang, X.-C., Tian, Y., Wang, H.-Y., Song, S.-N., Chen, Y.-Q., Liu, N., Zhang, C.-T., Huang, X., Jiang, H., & Hou, H.-L. (2025) · Frontiers in Immunology · doi:10.3389/fimmu.2025.1624943
“The dissimilar assessments of RECIST and TRG (17) With the emergence of Positron Emission Tomography (PET) might lead to inconsistencies in radiological and pathological Response Criteria in Solid Tumours (PERCIST) (30) and its evaluations.”
Kuang, D., Xu, H., & Shen, X. (2025) · Frontiers in Medicine · doi:10.3389/fmed.2025.1582683
Melhuish, T., Nautiyal, A., & Michopoulou, S. (2025) · Physica medica (Testo stampato) · doi:10.1016/j.ejmp.2025.105033
Qiu, J., Chen, M., Chen, Z., Beinat, C., Melemenidis, S., Graves, E. E., & Rao, J. (2025) · EJNMMI Research · doi:10.1186/s13550-025-01255-1
“…of treatment response rely heavily on cross-sectional imaging, with standardized guidelines in Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1 and Positron Emission Tomography Response Criteria In Solid Tumors (PER-CIST) recommending imaging 4 weeks after treatment initiation [9, 10].”
InfluentialNavigating response criteria in mCRPC: role of PSMA PET/CT and new insights.
Castello, A., Caracciolo, M., Bartolomei, M., Castellani, M., & Lopci, E. (2025) · The Quarterly Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging · doi:10.23736/s1824-4785.25.03639-8
Marazzi, F., Masiello, V., Fabi, A., Manfrida, S., Corvari, B., Lancellotta, V., Mazzarella, C., Longo, S., de Angeli, M., Moschella, F., et al. (2025) · Acta oncologica · doi:10.2340/1651-226x.2025.42933
“1 criteria [10] and/or PERCIST criteria [11].”
Nakaichi, T., Funamoto, K., Yamashita, S., Yamamoto, H., & Yokoyama, K. (2025) · Cureus · doi:10.7759/cureus.85089
Unique Presentation of a Heart-shaped Lesion in Lung Cancer
Goyal, H., Sainath, R., Viswanathan, R., Ganesan, P., & Halanaik, D. (2025) · Indian Journal of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.4103/ijnm.ijnm_43_25
Refractory and Relapsed Neuroblastoma: Exploring New Treatment Methods to Improve Outcomes
Abbas, A. (2025) · Indian Journal of Surgical Oncology · doi:10.1007/s13193-025-02311-x
He, Y.-B., Rogasch, J., & Savic, L. (2025) · PET Clinics · doi:10.1016/j.cpet.2025.03.001
[Molecular imaging and radioligand in breast cancer].
Masse, M., Bailleux, C., Creisson, A., & Humbert, O. (2025) · Bulletin du Cancer · doi:10.1016/j.bulcan.2025.02.014
Kenawy, M. A., Abdelhafez, H. M., Al-Fatlawi, M., Jassim, T., Jasim, A. S., & Alashkar, E. M. (2025) · Radiation and Environmental Biophysics · doi:10.1007/s00411-025-01114-6
“SUVpeak is the mean SUV in a spherical volume of 1 cm 3 that is centered on the largest pixel (Wahl et al. 2009).”
Critères d’évaluation de la TEP au 18F-FDG au cours de l’immunothérapie
Hamdan, D., Anjorand, E., Bousquet, G., & Soussan, M. (2024) · Médecine Nucléaire · doi:10.1016/j.mednuc.2024.10.005
Évaluer la réponse en cancérologie : l’imagerie un outil essentiel ?
Couturier, O., & Abgral, R. (2024) · Médecine Nucléaire · doi:10.1016/j.mednuc.2024.09.003
Évaluation de la réponse thérapeutique par TEP-FDG des cancers solides (critères PERCIST 1.0)
Abgral, R., & Couturier, O. (2024) · Médecine Nucléaire · doi:10.1016/j.mednuc.2024.09.004
Pu, Y., Penney, B. C., Zhang, J.-M., Little, K. J., Simon, C. A., Feinberg, N., Zhang, M., Hwang, G., & Appelbaum, D. (2024) · Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology · doi:10.2967/jnmt.124.267684
Lin, R.-L., Lv, H.-Y., Yu, J., Song, C., & Tian, A.-J. (2024) · Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery · doi:10.21037/qims-23-1738
“…tomography (18F-FDG PET/ CT) can reflect the glucose metabolism, and change in 18F-FDG uptake before and after treatment of BMs (osteolytic, osteogenesis, mixed) can be sensitively detected; thus, it has been recognized as an objective and reliable indicator of bone metastasis response (10,11).”
van der Hiel, B., Aalbersberg, E. A., van den Eertwegh, A. V. D., Fischer, J., Boellaard, R., de Vos, F. D., Boers-Sonderen, M., Stokkel, M., der Veen, L. J. D. W.-V., & Haanen, J. (2024) · Clinical Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.1097/rlu.0000000000005281
Lau, J., Ng, K., Wong, W., Ng, K., Chu, K., Ting, K., & Kung, B. (2024) · Nuclear medicine communications · doi:10.1097/mnm.0000000000001857
“The visual assessment was similar to the qualitative method of the PERCIST guidelines [5] and based on the available clinical information.”
Gao, J., Zhou, J.-X., Liu, C., Pan, Y., Lin, X., & Zhang, Y.-F. (2024) · Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1007/s00432-024-05776-5
“Moreover, precise SUVpeak measurements require a lesion diameter of at least 2 cm (Wahl et al. 2009), making it an unsuitable parameter for the small lesions in this study.”
Background[Advances in Pseudoprogression of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Non-small Cell Lung Cancer].
Tong, Y., Long, Y., Zhang, F., & Li, J. (2024) · PubMed Central · doi:10.3779/j.issn.1009-3419.2024.101.10
Therapiekontrolle bei Immuntherapien mittels PET/CT
Wasserloos, A., Beer, A., & Thaiss, W. (2024) · Angewandte Nuklearmedizin · doi:10.1055/a-2154-9283
Ettema, R. H., Luining, W. I., Vis, A. N., & van den Bergh, R. V. D. (2024) · Tijdschrift voor Urologie · doi:10.1007/s13629-024-00420-w
Zboun, A. M. M., Al-Smadi, A., Al-Soudi, H. S., Aldajeh, T. M. A., Momani, A. Z. Q., & Alkhawaldeh, K. (2024) · World Journal of Biology Pharmacy and Health Sciences · doi:10.30574/wjbphs.2024.17.2.0091
Principes de la tomographie par émission de positons (TEP) au 18FDG : application dans le mélanome
Terroir, M., Cassou-Mounat, T., Ortiz-Brugués, A., Pagés, C., & Sibaud, V. (2024) · Annales de Dermatologie et de Vénéréologie - FMC · doi:10.1016/j.fander.2023.10.010
Garrou, F., Finessi, M., Grimaldi, S., & Deandreis, D. (2024) · L Endocrinologo · doi:10.1007/s40619-023-01411-6
“…Europea per la Ricerca e il Trattamento del Cancro (EORTC) [4] e i [ 18 F]FDG-PET/CT Response Criteria In Solid Tumors (PERCIST) che si basano sulle variazioni della captazione del tracciante nelle lesioni [ 18 F]FDG-avide, misurate dal valore di captazione standardizzato (SUV o SUL) [5, 6].”
Mills, M. N., Kotecha, R. R., Herrera, R., Kütük, T., Fahey, M., Wuthrick, E. J., Grass, G. D., Hoffe, S. E., Frakes, J. M., Chuong, M. D., et al. (2024) · Clinical and Translational Radiation Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.ctro.2023.100719 · Cited by 4
“For the 24 cases with available positron emission tomography (PET) scans, tumor response was determined using the PET Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (PERCIST), version 1.0 [22].”
MethodInfluentialEditorial: Case reports in breast cancer : 2022
Wang, N. (2023) · Frontiers in Oncology · doi:10.3389/fonc.2023.1330225
Pitarch, G., Habarnau, Y. R., Chirico, R., Konowalik, B., Pérez, A., Valda, A., & Bastianello, M. (2023) · European Journal of Hybrid Imaging · doi:10.1186/s41824-023-00184-3
“Regarding the liver reference, it was decided to continue defining the hepatic uptake as the mean SUV in a spherical volume of 29 mm diameter placed in the upper right lobe of the liver since it is the closest to that proposed by PERCIST criteria (Wahl et al. 2009).”
MethodPancreatic cancer outcome—local treatment with radiation using MRI-LINAC
Almog, G., Pfeffer, R., Zalmanov, S., Grinberg, V., Lipsky, Y., Chernomordikov, E., Levin, D., Apter, S., Arsenault, O., Epstein, D., et al. (2023) · Frontiers in Oncology · doi:10.3389/fonc.2023.1289919
“Due to the frequent use of PET-CT as a physiological imaging modality, we were able to evaluate disease metabolic status using PERCIST criteria (20).”
MethodImagerie moléculaire par tomographie par émission de positons en oncologie thoracique
Jan, O., Seferian, A., Jevnikar, M., Levy, A., Decazes, P., Véra, P., & Besson, F. (2023) · EMC - Pneumologie · doi:10.1016/s1155-195x(23)44807-4
Post-acquisition standardization of positron emission tomography images
Mortazi, A., Udupa, J., Odhner, D., Tong, Y., & Torigian, D. (2023) · Frontiers in Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.3389/fnume.2023.1210931
“…(PERCIST) response assessment system because it is relatively stable and uniform in terms of FDG uptake from scan to scan, is well-de fi ned and suf fi ciently large, and has more FDG-uptake than other background organs such as adipose tissue or lung so that it is easily visible and measurable (29).”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Wahl, R. L., Jacene, H., Kasamon, Y., & Lodge, M. A.
- Affiliations
- Johns Hopkins University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Wahl, Richard L.
- Venue
- Journal of Nuclear Medicine
- Publisher
- Society of Nuclear Medicine
- Published
- 2009-04-29
- Volume
- 50
- Issue
- Suppl 1
- Pages
- 122S-150S
- ISSN
- 0161-5505 (ISSN-L)
- 2159-662X
- PMC
- PMC2755245
- OpenAlex
- W2155263737
- Cited by
- 3,777
- References
- 157
- Citations by year
- 2026: 180 · 2025: 200 · 2024: 197 · 2023: 230 · 2022: 248 · 2021: 309 · 2020: 271 · 2019: 259 · 2018: 225 · 2017: 274 · 2016: 246 · 2015: 245 · 2014: 221 · 2013: 230 · 2012: 192
- FWCI
- 21.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Nuclear Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Cancer Institute (CA006973, P30CA006973)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Medical Imaging Techniques and Applications
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Lung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
- Keywords
- RECIST, PERCIST, 18F-FDG PET, tumor response assessment, standardized uptake value, WHO criteria, RECIST 1.1, region of interest, treatment response assessment, solid tumors, lymphoma, sarcoma, hepatocellular carcinoma, mesothelioma, gastrointestinal stromal tumor, test-retest variability
- MeSH terms
- Forecasting, Humans, Neoplasms, Prognosis, World Health Organization, Treatment Outcome, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Radiopharmaceuticals, Fluorodeoxyglucose F18, Internationality, Positron-Emission Tomography
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
