Computer science Radiology, nuclear medicine & imaging
Author, co-author :
Ibrahim, A.; The D-Lab, Department of Precision Medicine, GROW – School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, Netherlands, Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, GROW – School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, Netherlands
Vallières, M.; Medical Physics Unit, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California – San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
Woodruff, H.; The D-Lab, Department of Precision Medicine, GROW – School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, Netherlands, Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, GROW – School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, Netherlands
Primakov, S.; The D-Lab, Department of Precision Medicine, GROW – School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, Netherlands, Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, GROW – School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, Netherlands
Beheshti, M.; Department of Nuclear Medicine and Comprehensive Diagnostic Center Aachen (CDCA), University Hospital RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany, DDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria
Keek, S.; The D-Lab, Department of Precision Medicine, GROW – School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, Netherlands, Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, GROW – School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, Netherlands
Refaee, T.; The D-Lab, Department of Precision Medicine, GROW – School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, Netherlands, Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, GROW – School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, Netherlands
Sanduleanu, S.; The D-Lab, Department of Precision Medicine, GROW – School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, Netherlands, Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, GROW – School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, Netherlands
Walsh, S.; The D-Lab, Department of Precision Medicine, GROW – School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, Netherlands, Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, GROW – School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, Netherlands
Morin, O.; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California – San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
Lambin, P.; The D-Lab, Department of Precision Medicine, GROW – School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, Netherlands, Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, GROW – School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, Netherlands
HUSTINX, Roland ; Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège - CHU > Département de Physique Médicale > Service médical de médecine nucléaire et imagerie onco
Mottaghy, F. M.; Department of Nuclear Medicine and Comprehensive Diagnostic Center Aachen (CDCA), University Hospital RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany, Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center+, Maastricht, Netherlands
Jong, P., Vowinckel, E., Liu, P.P., et al. Prognosis and determinants of survival in patients newly hospitalized for heart failure: A population-based study. Arch Intern Med 162 (2002), 1689–1694.
Yankeelov, T.E., Atuegwu, N., Hormuth, D., et al. Clinically relevant modeling of tumor growth and treatment response. Sci Transl Med, 5, 2013 187ps189-187ps189.
Aerts, H.J., Velazquez, E.R., Leijenaar, R.T., et al. Decoding tumour phenotype by noninvasive imaging using a quantitative radiomics approach. Nat Commun, 5, 2014, 4006.
Wu, G., Chen, Y., Wang, Y., et al. Sparse representation-based Radiomics for the diagnosis of brain tumors. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 37 (2018), 893–905.
Wang, S., Summers, R.M., Machine learning and radiology. Med Image Anal 16 (2012), 933–951.
Hamburg, M.A., Collins, F.S., The path to personalized medicine. N Engl J Med 363 (2010), 301–304.
Ramesh, A., Kambhampati, C., Monson, J.R., et al. Artificial intelligence in medicine. Ann R Coll Surg Engl, 86, 2004, 334.
Walsh, S., de Jong, E.E., van Timmeren, J.E., et al. Decision support systems in oncology. JCO Clin Cancer Inform 3 (2019), 1–9.
Lambin, P., Leijenaar, R.T.H., Deist, T.M., et al. Radiomics: The bridge between medical imaging and personalized medicine. Nat Rev Clin Oncol, 14, 2017, 749.
Sanduleanu, S., Woodruff, H.C., de Jong, E.E., et al. Tracking tumor biology with radiomics: A systematic review utilizing a radiomics quality score. Radiother Oncol 127 (2018), 349–360.
Huang, J., Ling, C.X., Using AUC and accuracy in evaluating learning algorithms. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 17 (2005), 299–310.
Steyerberg, E.W., Vickers, A.J., Cook, N.R., et al. Assessing the performance of prediction models: A framework for some traditional and novel measures. Epidemiology, 21, 2010, 128.
Vallières, M., Freeman, C.R., Skamene, S.R., et al. A radiomics model from joint FDG-PET and MRI texture features for the prediction of lung metastases in soft-tissue sarcomas of the extremities. Phys Med Biol, 60, 2015, 5471.
Specht, L., Berthelsen, A.K., PET/CT in radiation therapy planning. Paper presented at: Seminars in Nuclear Medicine, 2018.
Beyer, T., Townsend, D.W., Brun, T., et al. A combined PET/CT scanner for clinical oncology. J Nucl Med 41 (2000), 1369–1379.
Gambhir, S.S., Molecular imaging of cancer with positron emission tomography. Nat Rev Cancer, 2, 2002, 683.
Pichler, V., Berroterán-Infante, N., Philippe, C., et al. An overview of PET radiochemistry, Part 1: The Covalent Labels 18F, 11C, and 13N. J Nucl Med 59 (2018), 1350–1354.
Brandt, M., Cardinale, J., Aulsebrook, M.L., et al. An Overview of PET Radiochemistry, Part 2: Radiometals. J Nucl Med 59 (2018), 1500–1506.
Lheureux, S., Denoyelle, C., Ohashi, P., et al. Molecularly targeted therapies in cancer: A guide for the nuclear medicine physician. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 44 (2017), 41–54.
Tang, C., Militano, V., PET tracers for brain imaging. In PET/CT Brain Disorders, 2019, Springer, 15–21.
Maurer, T., Eiber, M., Schwaiger, M., et al. Current use of PSMA–PET in prostate cancer management. Nat Rev Urol, 13, 2016, 226.
Wester, H., Schottelius, M., Scheidhauer, K., et al. PET imaging of somatostatin receptors: Design, synthesis and preclinical evaluation of a novel 18 F-labelled, carbohydrated analogue of octreotide. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 30 (2003), 117–122.
Hanahan, D., Weinberg, R.A., Hallmarks of cancer: The next generation. Cell 144 (2011), 646–674.
Been, L.B., Suurmeijer, A.J., Cobben, D.C., et al. [18 F] FLT-PET in oncology: Current status and opportunities. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 31 (2004), 1659–1672.
Nekolla, S., Reder, S., Saraste, A., et al. Evaluation of the novel myocardial perfusion positron-emission tomography tracer 18F-BMS-747158-02: Comparison to 13N-ammonia and validation with microspheres in a pig model. Circulation 119 (2009), 2333–2342.
van den Hoff, J., Burchert, W., Borner, A.-R., et al. [1-(11) C] Acetate as a quantitative perfusion tracer in myocardial PET. J Nucl Med, 42, 2001, 1174.
Komar, G., Seppänen, M., Eskola, O., et al. 18F-EF5: A new PET tracer for imaging hypoxia in head and neck cancer. J Nucl Med 49 (2008), 1944–1951.
Souvatzoglou, M., Grosu, A., Röper, B., et al. Tumour hypoxia imaging with [18 F] FAZA PET in head and neck cancer patients: A pilot study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 34 (2007), 1566–1575.
Zegers, C.M., van Elmpt, W., Wierts, R., et al. Hypoxia imaging with [18F] HX4 PET in NSCLC patients: Defining optimal imaging parameters. Radiother Oncol 109 (2013), 58–64.
Grant, F.D., Fahey, F.H., Packard, A.B., et al. Skeletal PET with 18F-fluoride: Applying new technology to an old tracer. J Nucl Med 49 (2008), 68–78.
Even-Sapir, E.J., Imaging of malignant bone involvement by morphologic, scintigraphic, and hybrid modalities. J Nucl Med 46 (2005), 1356–1367.
Beheshti, M., Heinzel, A., Filss, C., et al. Prostate-specific membrane antigen radioligand therapy of prostate cancer. The quarterly journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging: Official publication of the Italian Association of Nuclear Medicine the International Association of Radiopharmacology SotSo. PSMA radioligand therapy of prostate cancer. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 63 (2019), 29–36.
Heinzel, A., Boghos, D., Mottaghy, F.M., et al. 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT for monitoring response to 177 Lu-PSMA-617 radioligand therapy in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 2019, 1–9.
Apolo, A.B., Pandit-Taskar, N., Morris, M.J., Novel tracers and their development for the imaging of metastatic prostate cancer. J Nucl Med, 49, 2008, 2031.
Herrmann, K., Czernin, J., Wolin, E.M., et al. Impact of 68Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT on the management of neuroendocrine tumors: The referring physician's perspective. J Nucl Med, 56, 2015, 70.
Van Binnebeek, S., Vanbilloen, B., Baete, K., et al. Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of 111 In-pentetreotide SPECT and 68 Ga-DOTATOC PET/CT: A lesion-by-lesion analysis in patients with metastatic neuroendocrine tumours. Eur Radiol 26 (2016), 900–909.
Wu, A.M., Antibodies and antimatter: The resurgence of immuno-PET. J Nucl Med 50 (2009), 2–5.
Khaw, B.-A., Gada, K.S., Patil, V., et al. Bispecific antibody complex pre-targeting and targeted delivery of polymer drug conjugates for imaging and therapy in dual human mammary cancer xenografts. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 41 (2014), 1603–1616.
Townsend, D.W., Cherry, S.R., Combining anatomy and function: The path to true image fusion. Eur Radiol 11 (2001), 1968–1974.
Kluetz, P.G., Meltzer, C.C., Villemagne, V.L., et al. Combined PET/CT imaging in oncology: Impact on patient management. Clin Positron Imaging 3 (2000), 223–230.
Hillner, B.E., Siegel, B.A., Liu, D., et al. Impact of positron emission tomography/computed tomography and positron emission tomography (PET) alone on expected management of patients with cancer: Initial results from the National Oncologic PET Registry. J Clin Oncol 26 (2008), 2155–2161.
Juweid, M.E., Cheson, B.D., Positron-emission tomography and assessment of cancer therapy. N Engl J Med 354 (2006), 496–507.
Barrington, S.F., O'doherty, M.J., Limitations of PET for imaging lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 30 (2003), S117–S127.
Suzuki, A., Nakamoto, Y., Terauchi, T., et al. Inter-observer variations in FDG-PET interpretation for cancer screening. Jpn J Clin Oncol 37 (2007), 615–622.
Brucher, N., Mandegaran, R., Filleron, T., et al. Measurement of inter-and intra-observer variability in the routine clinical interpretation of brain 18-FDG PET-CT. Ann Nucl Med 29 (2015), 233–239.
Withey, D.J., Koles, Z.J., Medical image segmentation: Methods and software. Paper presented at: Noninvasive Functional Source Imaging of the Brain and Heart and the International Conference on Functional Biomedical Imaging, 2007 NFSI-ICFBI 2007. Joint Meeting of the 6th International Symposium on 2007.
Chen, L.-C., Papandreou, G., Kokkinos, I., et al. Deeplab: Semantic image segmentation with deep convolutional nets, atrous convolution, and fully connected crfs. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 40 (2018), 834–848.
Liao, S., Gao, Y., Oto, A., et al. Representation learning: A unified deep learning framework for automatic prostate MR segmentation. Paper presented at: International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, 2013.
Litjens, G., Kooi, T., Bejnordi, B.E., et al. A survey on deep learning in medical image analysis. Med Image Anal 42 (2017), 60–88.
Bogowicz, M., Leijenaar, R.T., Tanadini-Lang, S., et al. Post-radiochemotherapy PET radiomics in head and neck cancer – The influence of radiomics implementation on the reproducibility of local control tumor models. Radiother Oncol 125 (2017), 385–391.
Zwanenburg, A., Leger, S., Vallières, M., et al. Image Biomarker Standardisation Initiative. 2016 arXiv preprint arXiv:161207003.
Hawkins, D.M., The problem of overfitting. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 44 (2004), 1–12.
Parmar, C., Velazquez, E.R., Leijenaar, R., et al. Robust radiomics feature quantification using semiautomatic volumetric segmentation. PloS One, 9, 2014, e102107.
Peerlings, J., Woodruff, H.C., Winfield, J.M., et al. Stability of radiomics features in apparent diffusion coefficient maps from a multi-centre test-retest trial. Sci Rep, 9, 2019, 4800.
Velazquez, E.R., Parmar, C., Jermoumi, M., et al. Volumetric CT-based segmentation of NSCLC using 3D-Slicer. Sci Rep, 3, 2013, 3529.
Hu, C., Wang, J., Zheng, C., et al. Raman spectra exploring breast tissues: Comparison of principal component analysis and support vector machine‐recursive feature elimination. Med Phys, 40, 2013, 063501.
Tibshirani, R., Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso. J R Stat Soc 58 (1996), 267–288.
Roberts, S., Everson, R., Independent Component Analysis: Principles and Practice. 2001, Cambridge University Press.
R Core Team R. A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. 2016, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria In: 2017.
The MathWorks I. MATLAB Release 2018a. 2017.
Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., et al. Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python. J Mach Learn Res 12 (2011), 2825–2830.
Cortes, C., Mohri, M., AUC optimization vs. error rate minimization. Paper Presented at: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2004.
Fusi, N., Sheth, R., Elibol, H.M., Probabilistic Matrix Factorization for Automated Machine Learning. 2017 arXiv preprint arXiv:170505355.
Deist, T.M., Dankers, F.J., Valdes, G., et al. Erratum:“Machine learning algorithms for outcome prediction in (chemo) radiotherapy: An empirical comparison of classifiers” [Med. Phys. 45 (7), 3449-3459 (2018)]. Med Phys 46 (2019), 1080–1087.
Zwanenburg, A., EP-1677: Multicentre initiative for standardisation of image biomarkers. Radiother Oncol 123 (2017), S914–S915.
Hatt, M., Vallieres, M., Visvikis, D., et al. IBSI: An international community radiomics standardization initiative. J Nucl Med, 59(Supplement 1), 2018 287-287.
Vallières, M., Zwanenburg, A., Badic, B., et al. Responsible radiomics research for faster clinical translation. Soc Nucl Med 59 (2018), 189–193.
Wilkinson, M.D., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, I.J., et al. The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci Data, 3, 2016, 160018.
Moons, K.G., Altman, D.G., Reitsma, J.B., et al. Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): Explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 162 (2015), W1–W73.
Basu, S., Alavi, A., PET-based personalized management in clinical oncology: An unavoidable path for the foreseeable future. PET Clin 11 (2016), 203–207.
Reuzé, S., Schernberg, A., Orlhac, F., et al. Radiomics in nuclear medicine applied to radiation therapy: methods, pitfalls, and challenges. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 102 (2018), 1117–1142.
Cheebsumon, P., van Velden, F.H., Yaqub, M., et al. Effects of image characteristics on performance of tumor delineation methods: A test-retest assessment. J Nucl Med 52 (2011), 1550–1558.
Yip, S.S., Aerts, H.J., Applications and limitations of radiomics. Phys Med Biol, 61, 2016, R150.
Kaalep, A., Sera, T., Oyen, W., et al. EANM/EARL FDG-PET/CT accreditation – Summary results from the first 200 accredited imaging systems. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 45 (2018), 412–422.
Boellaard, R., Delgado-Bolton, R., Oyen, W.J., et al. FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: Version 2.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 42 (2015), 328–354.
Boellaard, R., O'Doherty, M.J., Weber, W.A., et al. FDG PET and PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour PET imaging: Version 1.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 37, 2010, 181.
Aide, N., Lasnon, C., Veit-Haibach, P., et al. EANM/EARL harmonization strategies in PET quantification: From daily practice to multicentre oncological studies. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 44 (2017), 17–31.
Wahl, R.L., Jacene, H., Kasamon, Y., et al. From RECIST to PERCIST: Evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med, 50(Suppl 1), 2009, 122S.
Juweid, M.E., Stroobants, S., Hoekstra, O.S., et al. Use of positron emission tomography for response assessment of lymphoma: Consensus of the Imaging Subcommittee of International Harmonization Project in Lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 25 (2007), 571–578.
Meignan, M., Barrington, S., Itti, E., et al. Report on the 4th international workshop on positron emission tomography in lymphoma held in Menton, France, 3-5 October 2012. Leukemia Lymphoma 55 (2014), 31–37.
Leijenaar, R.T., Carvalho, S., Velazquez, E.R., et al. Stability of FDG-PET radiomics features: An integrated analysis of test-retest and inter-observer variability. Acta Oncol 52 (2013), 1391–1397.
Wu, J., Aguilera, T., Shultz, D., et al. Early-stage non–small cell lung cancer: Quantitative imaging characteristics of 18F fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT allow prediction of distant metastasis. Radiology 281 (2016), 270–278.
Lian, C., Ruan, S., Denœux, T., et al. Selecting radiomic features from FDG-PET images for cancer treatment outcome prediction. Med Image Anal 32 (2016), 257–268.
Keidar, Z., Haim, N., Guralnik, L., et al. PET/CT using 18F-FDG in suspected lung cancer recurrence: Diagnostic value and impact on patient management. J Nucl Med 45 (2004), 1640–1646.
Hübner, K.F., Buonocore, E., Gould, H.R., et al. Differentiating benign from malignant lung lesions using “quantitative” parameters of FDG PET images. Clin Nucl Med 21 (1996), 941–949.
Kinahan, P., Townsend, D., Beyer, T., et al. Attenuation correction for a combined 3D PET/CT scanner. Med Phys 25 (1998), 2046–2053.
Schulz, V., Torres-Espallardo, I., Renisch, S., et al. Automatic, three-segment, MR-based attenuation correction for whole-body PET/MR data. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 38 (2011), 138–152.
Morin, O., Vallières, M., Jochems, A., et al. A deep look into the future of quantitative imaging in oncology: A statement of working principles and proposal for change. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 102 (2018), 1074–1082.
Acharya, U.R., Hagiwara, Y., Sudarshan, V.K., Chan, W.Y., Ng, K.H., Towards precision medicine: From quantitative imaging to radiomics. J Zhejiang Univ-Sci B 19 (2018), 6–24.
Oh, J.S., Kang, B.C., Roh, J.-L., et al. Intratumor textural heterogeneity on pretreatment 18 F-FDG PET images predicts response and survival after chemoradiotherapy for hypopharyngeal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 22 (2015), 2746–2754.
Cheng, N.-M., Fang, Y., Chang, J., et al. Textural features of pretreatment 18F-FDG PET/CT images: Prognostic significance in patients with advanced T-stage oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. J Nucl Med 54 (2013), 1703–1709.
Chen, S.-W., Shen, W.-C., Lin, Y.-C., et al. Correlation of pretreatment 18 F-FDG PET tumor textural features with gene expression in pharyngeal cancer and implications for radiotherapy-based treatment outcomes. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 44 (2017), 567–580.
Cook, G., Yip, C., Siddique, M., et al. Are pretreatment 18F-FDG PET tumor textural features in non-small cell lung cancer associated with response and survival after chemoradiotherapy. J Nucl Med 54 (2013), 19–26.
Dong, X., Sun, X., Sun, L., et al. Early change in metabolic tumor heterogeneity during chemoradiotherapy and its prognostic value for patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer. PloS One, 11, 2016, e0157836.
Lovinfosse, P., Janvary, Z.L., Coucke, P., et al. FDG PET/CT texture analysis for predicting the outcome of lung cancer treated by stereotactic body radiation therapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 43 (2016), 1453–1460.
Takeda, K., Takanami, K., Shirata, Y., et al. Clinical utility of texture analysis of 18F-FDG PET/CT in patients with Stage I lung cancer treated with stereotactic body radiotherapy. J Radiat Res 58 (2017), 862–869.
Yip, S., McCall, K., Aristophanous, M., et al. Comparison of texture features derived from static and respiratory-gated PET images in non-small cell lung cancer. PLoS One, 9, 2014, e115510.
Leijenaar, R.T., Nalbantov, G., Carvalho, S., et al. The effect of SUV discretization in quantitative FDG-PET Radiomics: The need for standardized methodology in tumor texture analysis. Sci Rep, 5, 2015, 11075.
Chen, B., Zhang, R., Gan, Y., et al. Development and clinical application of radiomics in lung cancer. Radiat Oncol, 12, 2017, 154.
Kumar, V., Gu, Y., Basu, S., et al. Radiomics: The process and the challenges. Magn Reson Imaging 30 (2012), 1234–1248.
Orlhac, F., Boughdad, S., Philippe, C., et al. A postreconstruction harmonization method for multicenter radiomic studies in PET. J Nucl Med 59 (2018), 1321–1328.
Fortin, J.-P., Cullen, N., Sheline, Y.I., et al. Harmonization of cortical thickness measurements across scanners and sites. Neuroimage 167 (2018), 104–120.
Fortin, J.-P., Parker, D., Tunc, B., et al. Harmonization of multi-site diffusion tensor imaging data. Neuroimage 161 (2017), 149–170.
Yu, M., Linn, K.A., Cook, P.A., et al. Statistical harmonization corrects site effects in functional connectivity measurements from multi‐site fMRI data. Hum Brain Mapp 39 (2018), 4213–4227.
Welch, M.L., McIntosh, C., Haibe-Kains, B., et al. Vulnerabilities of radiomic signature development: The need for safeguards. Radiother Oncol 130 (2019), 2–9.
Thorwarth, D., Eschmann, S.M., Paulsen, F., et al. A kinetic model for dynamic [18F]-Fmiso PET data to analyse tumour hypoxia. Phys Med Biol, 50, 2005, 2209.
Inoue, T., Shibasaki, T., Oriuchi, N., et al. 18F α-methyl tyrosine PET studies in patients with brain tumors. J Nucl Med 40 (1999), 399–405.