2021
DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2021.04.009
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The dynamics and prognostic value of FDG PET-metrics in weekly monitoring of (chemo)radiotherapy for NSCLC

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Our findings support a predictive value of baseline SUV peak . Nevertheless, the best time point for response assessment is an area often discussed by experts, and studies investigating the optimal timepoint for response assessment during cCRT for patients with LA-NSCLC have found that both different timepoints and the longitudinal response-measurements had high prognostic value [14] , [15] .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Our findings support a predictive value of baseline SUV peak . Nevertheless, the best time point for response assessment is an area often discussed by experts, and studies investigating the optimal timepoint for response assessment during cCRT for patients with LA-NSCLC have found that both different timepoints and the longitudinal response-measurements had high prognostic value [14] , [15] .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Patient selection and eligibility are currently based on clinical baseline data such as stage and performance status (PS). However, several studies have suggested that early radiologic (CT-based) and metabolic (positron emission tomography (PET)-based) response to treatment might add predictive value, and a variety of metrics at different timepoints of the treatment course have been investigated [8] , [9] , [10] , [11] , [12] , [13] , [14] , [15] , [16] , [17] , [18] , [19] , [20] , [21] . Unfortunately, most studies are limited by small patient numbers, different timepoints of measuring response, incompatible endpoints, and conflicting results.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This result confirms that semiquantitative parameters, even if less accurate, well represent the glucose metabolism only if all technical and procedural aspects in patient preparation and scan acquisition are strictly respected. Indeed, especially when several PET/CT examinations are repeated over time for the evaluation of response to oncological treatment (44)(45)(46), the difficulty in strictly respecting all technical aspects can make the semiquantitative parameters unreliable. Moreover, it is important to remind that the accuracy of semiquantitative parameters may be affected by non-controlled aspects such as the oncological therapies that can modify the tracer bioavailability (especially the news antiangiogenic drugs), the cancer cells biological characteristics (tracer uptake), and other unknown biologic and patients factors (47,48).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%