References
Nanni C, Cottereau AS, Lopci E, Bodet-Milin C, Coronado M, Pro B, et al. Report of the 6th international workshop on PET in lymphoma. Leuk Lymphoma. 2017;7:1–6.
Barrington SF, Kluge R. FDG PET for therapy monitoring in Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphomas. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44(Suppl 1):97–110.
Hasenclever D, Kurch L, Mauz-Körholz C, Elsner A, Georgi T, Wallace H, et al. qPET - a quantitative extension of the Deauville scale to assess response in interim FDG-PET scans in lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:1301–8.
Annunziata S, Cuccaro A, Calcagni ML, Hohaus S, Giordano A, Rufini V. Interim FDG-PET/CT in Hodgkin lymphoma: the prognostic role of the ratio between target lesion and liver SUVmax (rPET). Ann Nucl Med. 2016;30(8):588–92.
Laffon E, Marthan R. FDG PET for therapy monitoring in Hodgkin's and non-Hodgkin's lymphomas: qPET versus rPET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44(9):1602–3.
Funding
Nothing to declare.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
Nothing to declare.
Ethical approval
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Annunziata, S., Calcagni, M.L., Indovina, L. et al. Measurement uncertainty and clinical impact of target-to-background ratios derived by interim FDG-PET/CT in Hodgkin lymphoma: reply to Laffon and Martan. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 44, 2140–2141 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-017-3819-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-017-3819-9