In the era of precision medicine, the optimization of oncological patient management with early and accurate tumor response assessment is crucial. In this scenario, [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose ([18F]FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) has gained an important role in providing prognostically relevant information. The first PET-based scoring system proposed in 1999 was the well-known European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) criteria. From that moment on and over the last 20 years, several PET/CT criteria have emerged and have been adapted to enhance the response assessment for specific tumor types and/or therapies, with only a few of them endorsed by guidelines. In this literature systematic review, we aimed to list and discuss the most relevant PET/CT criteria proposed for solid and non-solid [18F]FDG-avid tumors. A literature search extended until November 2022 on the PubMed/MEDLINE database was conducted. The criteria used to assess the response were first classified according to treatment type and specific cancer type. Then, the main findings of the criteria were analyzed and discussed. A widespread effort to standardize and identify the best [18F]FDG PET response criteria tailored for each oncological treatment emerged, also considering the introduction of new biological therapeutic agents and the increasingly essential post-treatment application of [18F]FDG PET/CT in different cancer diseases. To improve their impact on daily clinical practice, however, most of the proposed criteria need to be further validated.

[18F]FDG PET/CT criteria for treatment response assessment: EORTC and beyond / Miceli, Alberto; Jonghi-Lavarini, Lorenzo; Santo, Giulia; Cassarino, Gianluca; Linguanti, Flavia; Gazzilli, Maria; Cimino, Alessandra; Buschiazzo, Ambra; Sorbello, Stefania; Abenavoli, Elisabetta; Conte, Miriam; Pepponi, Miriam; Di Dato, Rossella; Rondini, Maria; Salis, Roberto; Tardelli, Elisa; Nicolini, Denise; Laudicella, Riccardo; La Torre &, Flavia; Giulia Nappi, Anna. - In: CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL IMAGING. - ISSN 2281-7565. - 11:(2023), pp. 421-437.

[18F]FDG PET/CT criteria for treatment response assessment: EORTC and beyond.

Miriam Conte
Methodology
;
2023

Abstract

In the era of precision medicine, the optimization of oncological patient management with early and accurate tumor response assessment is crucial. In this scenario, [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose ([18F]FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) has gained an important role in providing prognostically relevant information. The first PET-based scoring system proposed in 1999 was the well-known European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) criteria. From that moment on and over the last 20 years, several PET/CT criteria have emerged and have been adapted to enhance the response assessment for specific tumor types and/or therapies, with only a few of them endorsed by guidelines. In this literature systematic review, we aimed to list and discuss the most relevant PET/CT criteria proposed for solid and non-solid [18F]FDG-avid tumors. A literature search extended until November 2022 on the PubMed/MEDLINE database was conducted. The criteria used to assess the response were first classified according to treatment type and specific cancer type. Then, the main findings of the criteria were analyzed and discussed. A widespread effort to standardize and identify the best [18F]FDG PET response criteria tailored for each oncological treatment emerged, also considering the introduction of new biological therapeutic agents and the increasingly essential post-treatment application of [18F]FDG PET/CT in different cancer diseases. To improve their impact on daily clinical practice, however, most of the proposed criteria need to be further validated.
2023
FDG · PET/CT · PET Response criteria · EORTC · PERCIST · Immunotherapy
01 Pubblicazione su rivista::01a Articolo in rivista
[18F]FDG PET/CT criteria for treatment response assessment: EORTC and beyond / Miceli, Alberto; Jonghi-Lavarini, Lorenzo; Santo, Giulia; Cassarino, Gianluca; Linguanti, Flavia; Gazzilli, Maria; Cimino, Alessandra; Buschiazzo, Ambra; Sorbello, Stefania; Abenavoli, Elisabetta; Conte, Miriam; Pepponi, Miriam; Di Dato, Rossella; Rondini, Maria; Salis, Roberto; Tardelli, Elisa; Nicolini, Denise; Laudicella, Riccardo; La Torre &, Flavia; Giulia Nappi, Anna. - In: CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL IMAGING. - ISSN 2281-7565. - 11:(2023), pp. 421-437.
File allegati a questo prodotto
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11573/1697103
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 1
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 1
social impact