Optimal method for measuring baseline metabolic tumor volume in DLBCL patients: are statistical agreements of SUV ≥2.5 satisfactory?

Letter to the Editor
  • 4 Downloads

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

Not applicable.

Informed consent

Not applicable.

References

  1. 1.
    Ilyas H, Mikhaeel NG, Dunn JT, Rahman F, Møller H, Smith D, et al. Defining the optimal method for measuring baseline metabolic tumour volume in diffuse large B cell lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-018-3953-z.
  2. 2.
    Bland JM, Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999;8(2):135–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    JCGM. Evaluation of measurement data — Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement. 2008. www.bipm.org, September 2008.
  4. 4.
    Barrington SF, Sulkin T, Forbes A, PWM J. All that glitters is not gold - new reconstruction methods using Deauville criteria for patient reporting. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45:316–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Laffon E, Marthan R. On the cutoff of baseline total metabolic tumor volume in high-tumor-burden follicular lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:919–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Meignan M, Cottereau AS, Versari A, Chartier L, Dupuis J, Boussetta S, et al. Reply to H.J.A. Adams et al and E. Laffon et al. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:920–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CHU de BordeauxBordeauxFrance
  2. 2.Univ. Bordeaux, Centre de Recherche Cardio-Thoracique de BordeauxBordeauxFrance
  3. 3.INSERM U-1045, Centre de Recherche Cardio-Thoracique de BordeauxBordeauxFrance
  4. 4.Service de Médecine NucléaireHôpital du Haut-LévèquePessacFrance

Personalised recommendations