Detection and Characterization of Tumor Changes in <sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET Patient Monitoring Using Parametric Imaging
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
UNLABELLED: In PET-based patient monitoring, metabolic tumor changes occurring between PET scans are most often assessed visually or by measuring only a few parameters (tumor volume or uptake), neglecting most of the image content. We propose and evaluate a parametric imaging (PI) method to assess tumor changes at the voxel level. METHODS: Seventy-eight pairs of tumor images obtained from baseline and follow-up (18)F-FDG PET/CT for 28 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer were considered. For each pair, after CT-based registration of the PET volumes, the 2 PET datasets were subtracted. A biparametric graph of subtracted voxel values versus voxel values in the first PET scan was obtained. A model-based analysis of this graph was used to identify the tumor voxels in which significant changes occurred between the 2 scans and yielded indices characterizing these changes. The Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) based on the CT images obtained 5-8 wk after the second PET/CT scan were used to classify tumor masses as responding or progressive. On the basis of this classification, we compared the sensitivity and specificity of PI and an approach based on recommendations from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC). RESULTS: For tumor-based classification, the EORTC-based approach had a sensitivity and specificity of 85% and 52%, respectively, for detecting responding lesions, whereas PI had a sensitivity and specificity of 100% and 53%, respectively. None of responding tumors using RECIST was classified as progressive with the PI or EORTC-based criteria. Among the 14 progressive lesions according to RECIST, 12 were identified as progressive with PI whereas EORTC-based criteria classified only 1 as progressive and 13 as stable tumors. Considering the patient-based classification, none of the responders according to RECIST was classified as having progressive disease with the PI and EORTC-based criteria. PI has the advantage of showing a parametric image of the patient response to therapy, indicating potential heterogeneity in tumor response. CONCLUSION: The PI method has been successfully applied to characterize early metabolic tumor changes in 78 lesions from (18)F-FDG PET/CT scans of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer during chemotherapy. The PI findings correlated well with the standard RECIST-based response assessment.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».