001     1053910
005     20260130172304.0
024 7 _ |a 10.1093/neuonc/noaf201.1161
|2 doi
024 7 _ |a 1522-8517
|2 ISSN
024 7 _ |a 1523-5866
|2 ISSN
037 _ _ |a FZJ-2026-01608
082 _ _ |a 610
100 1 _ |a Mair, Maximilian J
|0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|b 0
111 2 _ |a 7th Quadrennial Meeting of the World Federation of Neuro-Oncology Societies
|g SNO / WFNOS 2025
|c Honolulu
|d 2025-11-20 - 2025-11-23
|w USA
245 _ _ |a IMG-82. Positron emission tomography (PET) use among European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer – Brain Tumour Group (EORTC-BTG) sites – a cross-sectional survey
260 _ _ |c 2025
336 7 _ |a Abstract
|b abstract
|m abstract
|0 PUB:(DE-HGF)1
|s 1769790008_27930
|2 PUB:(DE-HGF)
336 7 _ |a Conference Paper
|0 33
|2 EndNote
336 7 _ |a INPROCEEDINGS
|2 BibTeX
336 7 _ |a conferenceObject
|2 DRIVER
336 7 _ |a Output Types/Conference Abstract
|2 DataCite
336 7 _ |a OTHER
|2 ORCID
520 _ _ |a AbstractBACKGROUNDPositron emission tomography (PET) is increasingly used in patients with brain tumors, yet its adoption varies across institutions.METHODSTo assess the current landscape, a cross-sectional survey was conducted among European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) – Brain Tumour Group (BTG) sites between June 2024 and August 2024.RESULTSOut of the 312 sites invited, 103 replies from 20 countries in the Europe/Middle East region were received. PET availability was reported by 96/103 (93.2%) sites, of whom 74 reported PET use in patients with brain tumors. Most frequently, PET was performed in glioma (69/74, 93.2%), followed by brain metastasis (58/74, 78.4%), meningioma (52/74, 70.3%), and CNS lymphoma (46/74, 62.2%). Amino acid PET was used at 62/71 centers (87.3%), mainly in glioma (58/59, 98.3%) and for differentiation of tumor progression from treatment-related changes (58/59, 98.3%), differential diagnosis (54/59, 91.5%), and hotspot delineation (47/59, 79.7%). Somatostatin receptor (SSTR) PET was performed at 50/68 sites (73.5%), predominantly in meningioma (48/49, 98.0%), and for patient selection before radioligand therapy (41/49, 83.7%) as well as for target volume definition in radiotherapy (33/49, 67.3%) and differential diagnosis (27/49, 55.1%). PET was covered by statutory health insurance at 46/59 (78.0%) centers for amino acid PET and 33/49 (67.3%) for SSTR PET according to self-reported information. Main reasons for not performing PET in clinical routine included limited availability of tracers (14/29, 48.3%), high cost (11/29, 37.9%), and PET considered unnecessary by referring physicians (8/29, 27.6%).CONCLUSIONPET is widely used among EORTC-BTG sites, although implementation varies and is influenced by factors such as tracer availability, cost, and institutional perceptions. While further data from broader surveys including non-academic institutions is needed, the findings support the implementation of PET as clinical trial endpoint.
536 _ _ |a 5253 - Neuroimaging (POF4-525)
|0 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-5253
|c POF4-525
|f POF IV
|x 0
588 _ _ |a Dataset connected to CrossRef, Journals: juser.fz-juelich.de
700 1 _ |a Lohmann, Philipp
|b 1
700 1 _ |a Galldiks, Norbert
|0 P:(DE-Juel1)143792
|b 2
|u fzj
700 1 _ |a Belting, Mattias
|0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|b 3
700 1 _ |a Brandal, Petter
|0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|b 4
700 1 _ |a Broen, Martinus P G
|0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|b 5
700 1 _ |a Cicone, Francesco
|0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|b 6
700 1 _ |a Daisne, Jean-François
|0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|b 7
700 1 _ |a Ducray, François
|0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|b 8
700 1 _ |a Ehret, Felix
|0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|b 9
700 1 _ |a Furtner, Julia
|0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|b 10
700 1 _ |a Jakola, Asgeir S
|0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|b 11
700 1 _ |a Niyazi, Maximilian
|0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|b 12
700 1 _ |a Pellerino, Alessia
|0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|b 13
700 1 _ |a Rasschaert, Marika
|0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|b 14
700 1 _ |a Razis, Evangelia
|0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|b 15
700 1 _ |a Sahm, Felix
|0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|b 16
700 1 _ |a Smits, Marion
|0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|b 17
700 1 _ |a Tolboom, Nelleke
|0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|b 18
700 1 _ |a Verger, Antoine
|0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|b 19
700 1 _ |a Le Rhun, Emilie
|0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|b 20
700 1 _ |a Minniti, Giuseppe
|0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|b 21
700 1 _ |a Weller, Michael
|0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|b 22
700 1 _ |a Preusser, Matthias
|0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|b 23
700 1 _ |a Albert, Nathalie L
|0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|b 24
773 _ _ |a 10.1093/neuonc/noaf201.1161
|0 PERI:(DE-600)2094060-9
|y 2025
|g Vol. 27, no. Supplement_5, p. v292 - v293
|x 1523-5866
856 4 _ |u https://academic.oup.com/neuro-oncology/article/27/Supplement_5/v292/8319344
910 1 _ |a Forschungszentrum Jülich
|0 I:(DE-588b)5008462-8
|k FZJ
|b 2
|6 P:(DE-Juel1)143792
913 1 _ |a DE-HGF
|b Key Technologies
|l Natural, Artificial and Cognitive Information Processing
|1 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-520
|0 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-525
|3 G:(DE-HGF)POF4
|2 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-500
|4 G:(DE-HGF)POF
|v Decoding Brain Organization and Dysfunction
|9 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-5253
|x 0
915 _ _ |a Nationallizenz
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0420
|2 StatID
|d 2024-12-11
|w ger
915 _ _ |a JCR
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0100
|2 StatID
|b NEURO-ONCOLOGY : 2022
|d 2024-12-11
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0200
|2 StatID
|b SCOPUS
|d 2024-12-11
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0300
|2 StatID
|b Medline
|d 2024-12-11
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0199
|2 StatID
|b Clarivate Analytics Master Journal List
|d 2024-12-11
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0160
|2 StatID
|b Essential Science Indicators
|d 2024-12-11
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)1110
|2 StatID
|b Current Contents - Clinical Medicine
|d 2024-12-11
915 _ _ |a WoS
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0113
|2 StatID
|b Science Citation Index Expanded
|d 2024-12-11
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0150
|2 StatID
|b Web of Science Core Collection
|d 2024-12-11
915 _ _ |a IF >= 15
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)9915
|2 StatID
|b NEURO-ONCOLOGY : 2022
|d 2024-12-11
920 1 _ |0 I:(DE-Juel1)INM-4-20090406
|k INM-4
|l Physik der Medizinischen Bildgebung
|x 0
980 _ _ |a abstract
980 _ _ |a EDITORS
980 _ _ |a VDBINPRINT
980 _ _ |a I:(DE-Juel1)INM-4-20090406
980 _ _ |a UNRESTRICTED


LibraryCollectionCLSMajorCLSMinorLanguageAuthor
Marc 21