J. Bazan, F. Duan, B. Snyder, D. Horng, E. Graves et al., Metabolic tumor volume predicts overall survival and local control in patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer treated

, Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, vol.44, pp.17-24, 2017.

K. Ho, Y. Fang, H. Chung, Y. Liu, J. Chang et al., TLG-S criteria are superior to both EORTC and PERCIST for predicting outcomes in patients with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma treated with erlotinib, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, vol.99, issue.12, pp.2155-65, 2016.
DOI : 10.1111/j.1349-7006.2008.00782.x

O. Hyun, B. Luber, J. Leal, H. Wang, V. Bolejack et al., Response to Early Treatment Evaluated with 18F-FDG PET and PERCIST 1.0 Predicts Survival in Patients with Ewing Sarcoma Family of Tumors Treated with a Monoclonal Antibody to the Insulinlike Growth Factor 1 Receptor, Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol.57, issue.5, pp.735-775, 2016.
DOI : 10.2967/jnumed.115.162412

M. Michl, S. Lehner, P. Paprottka, H. Ilhan, P. Bartenstein et al., Use of PERCIST for Prediction of Progression-Free and Overall Survival After Radioembolization for Liver Metastases from Pancreatic Cancer, Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol.57, issue.3, pp.355-60, 2016.
DOI : 10.2967/jnumed.115.165613

K. Pinker, C. Riedl, L. Ong, M. Jochelson, G. Ulaner et al., The Impact That Number of Analyzed Metastatic Breast Cancer Lesions Has on Response Assessment by 18F-FDG PET/CT Using PERCIST, Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol.57, issue.7, pp.1102-1106, 2016.
DOI : 10.2967/jnumed.115.166629

J. Shang, X. Ling, L. Zhang, Y. Tang, Z. Xiao et al., Comparison of RECIST, EORTC criteria and PERCIST for evaluation of early response to chemotherapy in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, vol.14, issue.Suppl 1, pp.1945-53, 2016.
DOI : 10.1016/j.gde.2003.11.007

H. Young, R. Baum, U. Cremerius, K. Herholz, O. Hoekstra et al., Measurement of clinical and subclinical tumour response using [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography: review and 1999 EORTC recommendations, European Journal of Cancer, vol.35, issue.13, pp.1773-82, 1999.
DOI : 10.1016/S0959-8049(99)00229-4

R. Wahl, H. Jacene, Y. Kasamon, and M. Lodge, From RECIST to PERCIST: Evolving Considerations for PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors, Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol.50, issue.Suppl_1, pp.122-50, 2009.
DOI : 10.2967/jnumed.108.057307

R. Boellaard, Standards for PET Image Acquisition and Quantitative Data Analysis, Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol.50, issue.Suppl_1, 2009.
DOI : 10.2967/jnumed.108.057182
URL : http://jnm.snmjournals.org/content/50/Suppl_1/11S.full.pdf

R. Boellaard, Methodological Aspects of Multicenter Studies with Quantitative PET, Methods Mol Biol, vol.727, pp.335-384, 2011.
DOI : 10.1007/978-1-61779-062-1_18

R. Boellaard, Mutatis Mutandis: Harmonize the Standard!, Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol.53, issue.1, pp.1-3, 2012.
DOI : 10.2967/jnumed.111.094763

D. Bellevre, B. Fournier, C. Switsers, O. Dugue, A. Levy et al., Staging the axilla in breast cancer patients with 18F-FDG PET: how small are the metastases that we can detect with new generation clinical PET systems?, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, vol.40, issue.Suppl 2, pp.1103-1115, 2014.
DOI : 10.1007/s00259-013-2391-1

D. Koopman, G. Koerkamp, M. Jager, P. Arkies, H. Knollema et al., Digital PET compliance to EARL accreditation specifications. EJNMMI physics, 2017.

E. Teoh, D. Mcgowan, R. Macpherson, K. Bradley, and F. Gleeson, Phantom and Clinical Evaluation of the Bayesian Penalized Likelihood Reconstruction Algorithm Q.Clear on an LYSO PET/CT System, Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol.56, issue.9
DOI : 10.2967/jnumed.115.159301

E. Association-of-nuclear-medicine and . Earl-fdg-pet, , 2015.

N. Makris, M. Huisman, P. Kinahan, A. Lammertsma, and R. Boellaard, Evaluation of strategies towards harmonization of FDG PET/CT studies in multicentre trials: comparison of scanner validation phantoms and data analysis procedures, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, vol.53, issue.Suppl 1, pp.1507-1522, 2013.
DOI : 10.2967/jnumed.111.093443

R. Boellaard, R. Delgado-bolton, W. Oyen, F. Giammarile, K. Tatsch et al., FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, vol.28, issue.10, pp.328-54, 2015.
DOI : 10.1097/MNM.0b013e3282eff2d5

R. Boellaard, O. Doherty, M. Weber, W. Mottaghy, F. Lonsdale et al., FDG PET and PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour PET imaging: version 1.0, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, vol.31, issue.Suppl 1, pp.181-200, 2010.
DOI : 10.1016/j.icrp.2009.04.001

D. Delbeke, R. Coleman, M. Guiberteau, M. Brown, H. Royal et al., Procedure guideline for tumor imaging with 18F-FDG PET/CT 1.0, J Nucl Med, vol.47, pp.885-95, 2006.

E. Quak, L. Roux, P. Hofman, M. Robin, P. Bourhis et al., Harmonizing FDG PET quantification while maintaining optimal lesion detection: prospective multicentre validation in 517 oncology patients, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, vol.52, issue.Suppl 2, pp.2072-82, 2015.
DOI : 10.2967/jnumed.110.085662
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01276023

C. Lasnon, C. Desmonts, E. Quak, R. Gervais, P. Do et al., Harmonizing SUVs in multicentre trials when using different generation PET systems: prospective validation in non-small cell lung cancer patients, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, vol.49, issue.Suppl 1, pp.985-96, 2013.
DOI : 10.2967/jnumed.107.050187

C. Lasnon, L. Roux, P. Quak, E. Robin, P. Hofman et al., EORTC PET response criteria are more influenced by reconstruction inconsistencies than PERCIST, but both equally benefit from the EARL harmonization program, J Nucl Med

M. Kelly and J. Declerck, SUVref: reducing reconstruction-dependent variation in PET SUV, EJNMMI Research, vol.1, issue.1, p.16, 2011.
DOI : 10.2967/jnumed.109.063016

J. Landis and G. Koch, The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data, Biometrics, vol.33, issue.1, pp.159-74, 1977.
DOI : 10.2307/2529310

J. Sunderland and P. Christian, Quantitative PET/CT Scanner Performance Characterization Based Upon the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Clinical Trials Network Oncology Clinical Simulator Phantom, Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol.56, issue.1, pp.145-52, 2015.
DOI : 10.2967/jnumed.114.148056

K. Skougaard, D. Nielsen, B. Jensen, and H. Hendel, Comparison of EORTC Criteria and PERCIST for PET/CT Response Evaluation of Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Treated with Irinotecan and Cetuximab, Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol.54, issue.7, pp.1026-1057, 2013.
DOI : 10.2967/jnumed.112.111757

G. Kuhnert, R. Boellaard, S. Sterzer, D. Kahraman, M. Scheffler et al., Impact of PET/CT image reconstruction methods and liver uptake normalization strategies on quantitative image analysis, Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, pp.259-274

E. Quak, N. Hovhannisyan, C. Lasnon, C. Fruchart, J. Vilque et al., The importance of harmonizing interim positron emission tomography in non-Hodgkin lymphoma: focus on the Deauville criteria, Haematologica, vol.99, issue.6, pp.84-89, 2014.
DOI : 10.3324/haematol.2014.104125

C. Lasnon, T. Salomon, C. Desmonts, P. Do, Y. Oulkhouir et al., Generating harmonized SUV within the EANM EARL accreditation program: software approach versus EARL-compliant reconstruction, Annals of Nuclear Medicine, vol.277, issue.2009, pp.12149-12165
DOI : 10.1148/radiol.2015141262

N. Aide, C. Lasnon, V. Haibach, P. Sera, T. Sattler et al., EANM/EARL harmonization strategies in PET quantification: from daily practice to multicentre oncological studies, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, vol.45, issue.Suppl 1, pp.259-276
DOI : 10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2014.12.001
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/inserm-01856095