TY  - JOUR
AU  - Nanni, Cristina
AU  - Kobe, Carsten
AU  - Baeßler, Bettina
AU  - Baues, Christian
AU  - Boellaard, Ronald
AU  - Borchmann, Peter
AU  - Buck, Andreas
AU  - Buvat, Irène
AU  - Chapuy, Björn
AU  - Cheson, Bruce D
AU  - Chrzan, Robert
AU  - Cottereau, Ann-Segolene
AU  - Dührsen, Ulrich
AU  - Eikenes, Live
AU  - Hutchings, Martin
AU  - Jurczak, Wojciech
AU  - Kraeber-Bodéré, Françoise
AU  - Lopci, Egesta
AU  - Luminari, Stefano
AU  - MacLennan, Steven
AU  - Mikhaeel, N George
AU  - Nijland, Marcel
AU  - Rodríguez-Otero, Paula
AU  - Treglia, Giorgio
AU  - Withofs, Nadia
AU  - Zamagni, Elena
AU  - Zinzani, Pier Luigi
AU  - Zijlstra, Josée M
AU  - Herrmann, Ken
AU  - Kunikowska, Jolanta
TI  - European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM) Focus 4 consensus recommendations: molecular imaging and therapy in haematological tumours
JO  - The lancet  / Haematology
VL  - 10
IS  - 5
SN  - 2352-3026
CY  - London [u.a.]
PB  - Elsevier
M1  - DKFZ-2023-00878
SP  - e367 - e381
PY  - 2023
AB  - Given the paucity of high-certainty evidence, and differences in opinion on the use of nuclear medicine for hematological malignancies, we embarked on a consensus process involving key experts in this area. We aimed to assess consensus within a panel of experts on issues related to patient eligibility, imaging techniques, staging and response assessment, follow-up, and treatment decision-making, and to provide interim guidance by our expert consensus. We used a three-stage consensus process. First, we systematically reviewed and appraised the quality of existing evidence. Second, we generated a list of 153 statements based on the literature review to be agreed or disagreed with, with an additional statement added after the first round. Third, the 154 statements were scored by a panel of 26 experts purposively sampled from authors of published research on haematological tumours on a 1 (strongly disagree) to 9 (strongly agree) Likert scale in a two-round electronic Delphi review. The RAND and University of California Los Angeles appropriateness method was used for analysis. Between one and 14 systematic reviews were identified on each topic. All were rated as low to moderate quality. After two rounds of voting, there was consensus on 139 (90
LB  - PUB:(DE-HGF)16
C6  - pmid:37142345
DO  - DOI:10.1016/S2352-3026(23)00030-3
UR  - https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/275790
ER  -