International Agency for Research on Cancer. Hodgkin lymphoma fact sheet. Lyon, France. c2022.

International Agency for Research on Cancer. Non-Hodgkin lymphoma fact sheet. Lyon, France: c2022.

International Agency for Research on Cancer. Thailand fact sheets. Lyon, France. c2022.

Koshy M, Fairchild A, Son CH, Mahmood U. Improved survival time trends in hodgkin’s lymphoma. Cancer Med. 2016;5:997–1003.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

la Fougère C, Hundt W, Bröckel N, Pfluger T, Haug A, Scher B, et al. Value of PET/CT versus PET and CT performed as separate investigations in patients with hodgkin’s disease and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2006;33:1417–25.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Cheson BD, Fisher RI, Barrington SF, Cavalli F, Schwartz LH, Zucca E, et al. Recommendations for initial evaluation, staging, and response assessment of Hodgkin and Non-Hodgkin lymphoma: the Lugano classification. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:3059–67.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Wright CL, Maly JJ, Zhang J, Knopp MV. Advancing precision nuclear medicine and molecular imaging for lymphoma. PET Clin. 2017;12:63–82.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

D′Souza MM, Jaimini A, Bansal A, Tripathi M, Sharma R, Mondal A, et al. FDG-PET/CT in lymphoma. Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2013;23:354.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Abdel-Sattar MH, Abdelaziz O, Othman AO, El-Refaei SM. The use of Deauville criteria in follow-up assessment of response to therapy in extra-nodal non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med. 2018;49:209–15.

Article  Google Scholar 

Sher AC, Seghers V, Paldino MJ, Dodge C, Krishnamurthy R, Krishnamurthy R, et al. Assessment of sequential PET/MRI in comparison with PET/CT of pediatric lymphoma: a prospective study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016;206:623–31.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Kinahan PE, Fletcher JW. Positron emission tomography-computed tomography standardized uptake values in clinical practice and assessing response to therapy. Semin Ultrasound CT MRI. 2010;31:496–505.

Article  Google Scholar 

Vitor T, Martins KM, Ionescu TM, Cunha ML, Baroni RH, Garcia MRT, et al. PET/MRI: a novel hybrid imaging technique. Major clinical indications and preliminary experience in Brazil. Einstein (São Paulo). 2017;15:115–8.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Cronin CG, Swords R, Truong MT, Viswanathan C, Rohren E, Giles FJ, et al. Clinical utility of PET/CT in lymphoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.09.2637.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Hadique S, Jain P, Hadi Y, Baig A, Parker JE. Utility of FDG PET/CT for assessment of lung nodules identified during low dose computed tomography screening. BMC Med Imaging. 2020;20:69.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Husby T, Johansen H, Bogsrud T, Hustad KV, Evensen BV, Boellard R, et al. A comparison of FDG PET/MR and PET/CT for staging, response assessment, and prognostic imaging biomarkers in lymphoma. Ann Hematol. 2022;101:1077–88.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Afaq A, Fraioli F, Sidhu H, Wan S, Punwani S, Chen SH, et al. Comparison of PET/MRI with PET/CT in the evaluation of disease status in lymphoma. Clin Nucl Med. 2017;42:e7.

Article  Google Scholar 

Varoquaux A, Rager O, Poncet A, Delattre BM, Ratib O, Becker CD, et al. Detection and quantification of focal uptake in head and neck tumours: 18F-FDG PET/MR versus PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;41:462–75.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Drzezga A, Souvatzoglou M, Eiber M, Beer AJ, Fürst S, Martinez-Möller A, et al. First clinical experience with integrated whole-body PET/MR: comparison to PET/CT in patients with oncologic diagnoses. J Nucl Med. 2012;53:845–55.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Kubota K, Itoh M, Ozaki K, Ono S, Tashiro M, Yamaguchi K, et al. Advantage of delayed whole-body FDG-PET imaging for tumour detection. Eur J Nucl Med. 2001;28:696–703.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Kershah S, Partovi S, Traughber BJ, Muzic RF Jr, Schluchter MD, O’Donnell JK, et al. Comparison of standardized uptake values in normal structures between PET/CT and PET/MRI in an oncology patient population. Mol Imaging Biol. 2013;15:776–85.

Karp JS, Surti S, Daube-Witherspoon ME, Muehllehner G. Benefit of time-of-flight in PET: experimental and clinical results. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:462–70.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Rausch IF, Bergmann H, Dudczak R, Hirtl A, Georg D, Knäusl B. Influence of PET reconstruction parameters on the Truex algorithm. Nuklearmedizin. 2013;52:28–35.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Lecoq P, Gundacker S. SIPM applications in positron emission tomography: toward ultimate PET time-of-flight resolution. Eur Phys J Plus. 2021;136:292.

Article  Google Scholar 

Cheng G, Alavi A, Lim E, Werner TJ, Del Bello CV, Akers SR. Dynamic changes of FDG uptake and clearance in normal tissues. Mol Imaging Biol. 2012;15:345–52.

Article  Google Scholar 

Chin BB, Green ED, Turkington TG, Hawk TC, Coleman RE. Increasing uptake time in FDG-PET: standardized uptake values in normal tissues at 1 versus 3 h. Mol Imaging Biol. 2008;11:118–22.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar