Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2019. CA Cancer J Clin. 2019;69(1):7–34.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, Bray F. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(3):209–49.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Duma N, Santana-Davila R, Molina JR. Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Epidemiology, Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment. Mayo Clin Proc. 2019;94(8):1623–40.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

van Tinteren H, Hoekstra OS, Smit EF, van den Bergh JH, Schreurs AJ, Stallaert RA, van Velthoven PC, Comans EF, Diepenhorst FW, Verboom P, et al. Effectiveness of positron emission tomography in the preoperative assessment of patients with suspected non-small-cell lung cancer: the PLUS multicentre randomised trial. Lancet. 2002;359(9315):1388–93.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

MacManus MP, Hicks RJ, Matthews JP, Hogg A, McKenzie AF, Wirth A, Ware RE, Ball DL. High rate of detection of unsuspected distant metastases by pet in apparent stage III non-small-cell lung cancer: implications for radical radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001;50(2):287–93.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Lim CH, Park SB, Kim HK, Choi YS, Kim J, Ahn YC, Ahn MJ, Choi JY. Clinical Value of Surveillance (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT for Detecting Unsuspected Recurrence or Second Primary Cancer in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer after Curative Therapy. Cancers (Basel). 2022;14(3):632.

Nestle U, Schimek-Jasch T, Kremp S, Schaefer-Schuler A, Mix M, Kusters A, Tosch M, Hehr T, Eschmann SM, Bultel YP, et al. Imaging-based target volume reduction in chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (PET-Plan): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2020;21(4):581–92.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Pinker K, Riedl C, Weber WA. Evaluating tumor response with FDG PET: updates on PERCIST, comparison with EORTC criteria and clues to future developments. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44(Suppl 1):55–66.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Tirkes T, Hollar MA, Tann M, Kohli MD, Akisik F, Sandrasegaran K. Response criteria in oncologic imaging: review of traditional and new criteria. Radiographics. 2013;33(5):1323–41.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Iravani A, Turgeon GA, Akhurst T, Callahan JW, Bressel M, Everitt SJ, Siva S, Hofman MS, Hicks RJ, Ball DL, et al. PET-detected pneumonitis following curative-intent chemoradiation in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): recognizing patterns and assessing the impact on the predictive ability of FDG-PET/CT response assessment. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019;46(9):1869–77.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Kandathil A, Sibley RC III, Subramaniam RM. Lung Cancer Recurrence: (18)F-FDG PET/CT in Clinical Practice. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2019;213(5):1136–44.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Hicks RJ, Mac Manus MP, Matthews JP, Hogg A, Binns D, Rischin D, Ball DL, Peters LJ. Early FDG-PET imaging after radical radiotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer: inflammatory changes in normal tissues correlate with tumor response and do not confound therapeutic response evaluation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004;60(2):412–8.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Turgeon GA, Iravani A, Akhurst T, Beaulieu A, Callahan JW, Bressel M, Cole AJ, Everitt SJ, Siva S, Hicks RJ, et al. What (18)F-FDG PET Response-Assessment Method Best Predicts Survival After Curative-Intent Chemoradiation in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: EORTC, PERCIST, Peter Mac Criteria, or Deauville Criteria? J Nucl Med. 2019;60(3):328–34.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Nestle U, Rischke HC, Eschmann SM, Holl G, Tosch M, Miederer M, Plotkin M, Essler M, Puskas C, Schimek-Jasch T, et al. Improved inter-observer agreement of an expert review panel in an oncology treatment trial–Insights from a structured interventional process. Eur J Cancer. 2015;51(17):2525–33.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

O JH, Lodge MA, Wahl R. Practical PERCIST: A Simplified Guide to PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.0. Radiology. 2016;280(2):576–84.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Fledelius J, Khalil A, Hjorthaug K, Frokiaer J. Inter-observer agreement improves with PERCIST 1.0 as opposed to qualitative evaluation in non-small cell lung cancer patients evaluated with F-18-FDG PET/CT early in the course of chemo-radiotherapy. EJNMMI Res. 2016;6(1):71.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Chapet O, Kong FM, Quint LE, Chang AC, Ten Haken RK, Eisbruch A, Hayman JA. CT-based definition of thoracic lymph node stations: an atlas from the University of Michigan. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005;63(1):170–8.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Maffione AM, Ferretti A, Chondrogiannis S, Rampin L, Marzola MC, Grassetto G, Capirci C, Colletti PM, Rubello D. Proposal of a new 18F-FDG PET/CT predictor of response in rectal cancer treated by neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy and comparison with PERCIST criteria. Clin Nucl Med. 2013;38(10):795–7.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA. From RECIST to PERCIST: Evolving Considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(Suppl 1):122S-150S.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159–74.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Sheikhbahaei S, Mena E, Marcus C, Wray R, Taghipour M, Subramaniam RM. 18F-FDG PET/CT: Therapy Response Assessment Interpretation (Hopkins Criteria) and Survival Outcomes in Lung Cancer Patients. J Nucl Med. 2016;57(6):855–60.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Mac Manus MP, Hicks RJ, Matthews JP, McKenzie A, Rischin D, Salminen EK, Ball DL. Positron emission tomography is superior to computed tomography scanning for response-assessment after radical radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(7):1285–92.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Krak NC, Boellaard R, Hoekstra OS, Twisk JW, Hoekstra CJ, Lammertsma AA. Effects of ROI definition and reconstruction method on quantitative outcome and applicability in a response monitoring trial. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2005;32(3):294–301.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Nahmias C, Wahl LM. Reproducibility of standardized uptake value measurements determined by 18F-FDG PET in malignant tumors. J Nucl Med. 2008;49(11):1804–8.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Boellaard R, Krak NC, Hoekstra OS, Lammertsma AA. Effects of noise, image resolution, and ROI definition on the accuracy of standard uptake values: a simulation study. J Nucl Med. 2004;45(9):1519–27.

PubMed  Google Scholar 

Krak NC, van der Hoeven JJ, Hoekstra OS, Twisk JW, van der Wall E, Lammertsma AA. Measuring [(18)F]FDG uptake in breast cancer during chemotherapy: comparison of analytical methods. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003;30(5):674–81.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Maffione AM, Marzola MC, Grassetto G, Chondrogiannis S, Giammarile F, Rubello D. Are PREDIST criteria better than PERCIST criteria as a PET predictor of preoperative treatment response in rectal cancer? Nucl Med Commun. 2014;35(8):890–2.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Paquet N, Albert A, Foidart J, Hustinx R. Within-patient variability of (18)F-FDG: standardized uptake values in normal tissues. J Nucl Med. 2004;45(5):784–8.

CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Kurland BF, Peterson LM, Shields AT, Lee JH, Byrd DW, Novakova-Jiresova A, Muzi M, Specht JM, Mankoff DA, Linden HM, et al. Test-Retest Reproducibility of (18)F-FDG PET/CT Uptake in Cancer Patients Within a Qualified and Calibrated Local Network. J Nucl Med. 2019;60(5):608–14.

Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar