Role of imaging in the staging and response assessment of lymphoma: consensus of the International Conference on Malignant Lymphomas Imaging Working Group.

By Sally F. Barrington, N. Mikhaeel, L. Kostakoglu, M. Meignan, M. Hutchings, Stefan P. Mu¨eller, Lawrence H. Schwartz, E. Zucca, Richard I. Fisher, J. Trotman and 13 more. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2014

1,456 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Neurology, Pathology and Forensic Medicine, Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/32aad365918f1ab5b815de5457a6cc7c87140862

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

1. H. Tilly
2. M. G. Silva
3. B. Cheson
4. U. Vitolo
5. A. Jack
6. M. Meignan
7. Richard I. Fisher
8. A. López-Guillermo

Citations in the corpus

• Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL): ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. (2012, methodology): “has proposed different response categories, termed ‘metabolic response categories’ [20, 21]:”
• FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0 (2014, neutral): “Further, a fivepoint scale has been proposed for assessment of lymphoma therapy response [80].”
• Recommendations for initial evaluation, staging, and response assessment of Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma: the Lugano classification. (2014, methodology): “The current recommendation is to use the 5-point scale, both for clinical trials including interim analysis and for end-of-treatment assessment (Table 3).(24) Interim PET-CT is used to assess early treatment response and, at end of treatment, to establish remission status.”