Table 5.

Studies evaluating the role of FDG PET and PET/CT in radiation planning.

Author year	Number of patients	Study type	Results	Notes
Soto et al. [85], 2008	61 (9 LRF)	Retrospective	8/9 LRF within BTV-PET.
Rothschild et al. [86], 2007	45	Case-control analysis	PET/CT with IMRT improved cure rates	Advanced pharyngeal carcinoma
Wang et al. [87], 2006	28	Prospective	PET/CT-based GTV significantly different from CT scans alone in 50% of cases	PET/CT upgraded T and N stage in 18 p.
Breen et al. [88], 2007	10		no significant differences in the GTVs between PET/CT and CT alone	CT volumes were larger than PET-CT
El-Bassiouni et al. [89], 2007	25		PET/CT-based volume significantly smaller than CT.
Koshy et al. [90], 2005	36	Retrospective	TNM changed in 36%, RT volume and dose changed in 14%
Heron et al. [91], 2004	21	Prospective	PET/CT improves delineation of normal tissues from tumor areas	PET/CT improves staging
Ciernik et al. [92], 2003	12HNC of 39	Retrospective	PET/CT changed GTV in 50% compared to CT
Nishioka et al. [93], 2002	21		PET improves GTV, normal tissue sparing	PET alone

(IMRT) intensity-modulated radiation therapy, (GTV) gross target volume, (BTV) biological target volume, (LRF) locoregional failure.