Display options
Share it on

EJNMMI Res. 2018 Jun 15;8(1):52. doi: 10.1186/s13550-018-0403-7.

Spatial relationship of 2-deoxy-2-[.

EJNMMI research

John M Floberg, Kathryn J Fowler, Dominique Fuser, Todd A DeWees, Farrokh Dehdashti, Barry A Siegel, Richard L Wahl, Julie K Schwarz, Perry W Grigsby

Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, 660 S. Euclid Ave, Box 8224, St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA. [email protected].
  2. Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, 660 S. Euclid Ave, Box 8131, St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA.
  3. Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.
  4. Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Mayo Clinic, 13400 E. Shea Blvd, Scottsdale, AZ, 85259, USA.
  5. Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, 660 S. Euclid Ave, Box 8224, St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA.
  6. Department of Cell Biology and Physiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.

PMID: 29904822 PMCID: PMC6003894 DOI: 10.1186/s13550-018-0403-7

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This study investigated the spatial relationship of 2-deoxy-2-[

RESULTS: Seventeen patients with PET/MR scans were identified. There was a significant inverse correlation between SUV

CONCLUSIONS: In this hypothesis-generating study, a consistent inverse correlation between voxel SUV and ADC values was seen in SCCAs and poorly differentiated tumors. On univariate statistical analysis, correlation between voxel SUV and ADC values was prognostic for DFS.

Keywords: Cervical cancer; Diffusion imaging; Imaging biomarkers; Multimodal imaging; PET/MRI

References

  1. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002 Jun 1;53(2):353-9 - PubMed
  2. Cancer. 2007 Oct 15;110(8):1738-44 - PubMed
  3. JAMA. 2007 Nov 21;298(19):2289-95 - PubMed
  4. Clin Cancer Res. 2008 Aug 15;14(16):5236-41 - PubMed
  5. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009 Feb;36(2):200-8 - PubMed
  6. Radiology. 2008 Dec;249(3):900-8 - PubMed
  7. Cancer. 2009 Aug 1;115(15):3548-54 - PubMed
  8. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2009 Nov-Dec;33(6):858-62 - PubMed
  9. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011 Mar-Apr;61(2):69-90 - PubMed
  10. Gynecol Oncol. 2012 Oct;127(1):136-40 - PubMed
  11. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2013 Feb;37(2):431-4 - PubMed
  12. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013 Feb;200(2):314-20 - PubMed
  13. Eur J Radiol. 2013 Nov;82(11):2055-60 - PubMed
  14. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2013 Sep;23(7):1184-90 - PubMed
  15. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013 Nov;201(5):1115-9 - PubMed
  16. Eur Radiol. 2014 May;24(5):1081-8 - PubMed
  17. PLoS One. 2014 May 07;9(5):e96751 - PubMed
  18. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014 Nov 15;90(4):794-801 - PubMed
  19. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2015 Jul;25(6):1073-8 - PubMed
  20. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2015 Oct;25(8):1461-7 - PubMed
  21. Radiother Oncol. 2015 Nov;117(2):288-93 - PubMed
  22. PLoS One. 2015 Nov 09;10(11):e0141684 - PubMed
  23. PLoS One. 2015 Dec 15;10(12):e0145063 - PubMed
  24. Eur Radiol. 2016 Sep;26(9):3272-9 - PubMed
  25. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2016 Jan 08;17(1):121-131 - PubMed
  26. Radiology. 2017 May;283(2):547-559 - PubMed
  27. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017 Mar 1;97(3):546-553 - PubMed
  28. Oncotarget. 2017 Apr 25;8(17):28285-28296 - PubMed
  29. PLoS One. 2017 Jul 3;12(7):e0180184 - PubMed
  30. Nucl Med Commun. 2017 Dec;38(12):1076-1084 - PubMed
  31. Contrast Media Mol Imaging. 2017 Feb 26;2017:4729547 - PubMed

Publication Types

Grant support