descriptionPublicationkeyboard_double_arrow_right Article 28 Jan 2010 English Publisher:American Society of HematologyJournal:Blood, volume 115, pages 752-753 (issn: 0006-4971, eissn: 1528-0020,

Authors: Jonathan W. Friedberg;

doi: 10.1182/blood-2009-09-244947

pmid: 20110429

PET positive, PET negative, or PET peeve?

- Summary
- Metrics

Abstract

In this issue of Blood , Horning and colleagues report that there was disagreement by 3 nuclear medicine experts on interpretation of FDG-PET images obtained in the context of a clinical trial in aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma 32% of the time. 1 These results emphasize the need for standardized criteria to interpret interim PET scans in lymphoma and should cause physicians to question the practice of changing therapy based on PET imaging outside the context of a trial.

Related Organizations

University of Rochester
United States

Impact byBIP!

	citations This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).	9
	popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.	Average
	influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).	Top 10%
	impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.	Top 10%