1. Sacks A, Peller PJ, Surasi DS, Chatburn L, Mercier G, Subramaniam RM. Value of PET/CT in the management of liver metastases, part 1. Am J Roentgenol. 2011; 197(2):W256–9 .
2. Koyama K, Okamura T, Kawabe J, Ozawa N, Higashiyama S, Ochi H, et al. The usefulness of 18F-FDG PET images obtained 2 hours after intravenous injection in liver tumor. Ann Nucl Med. 2002; 16(3):169–76 .
3. Dirisamer A, Halpern BS, Schima W, Heinisch M, Wolf F, Beheshti M, et al. Dual-time-point FDG-PET/CT for the detection of hepatic metastases. Mol Imaging Biol. 2008; 10(6): 335–40 .
4. Hassler S, Hubele F, Constantinesco A, Goetz C. Comparing respiratory gated with delayed scans in the detection of colorectal carcinoma hepatic and pulmonary metas-tases with 18F-FDG PET-CT. Clin Nucl Med. 2014;39(1):7–13 .
5. Lee JW, Kim SK, Lee SM, Moon SH, Kim TS. Detection of hepatic metastases using dual-time-point FDG PET/CT scans in patients with colorectal cancer. Mol Imaging Biol. 2011; 13(3):565–72 .
6. Frood R, McDermott G, Scarsbrook A. Respiratory-gated PET/CT for pulmonary lesion characterisation-promises and problems. Br J Radiol. 2018; 91(1086): 20170640 .
7. Bailly P, Bouzerar R, Shields T, Meyer ME, Daouk J. Benefits of respiratory-gated 18F-FDG PET acquisition in lung disease. Nucl Med Commun. 2018; 39(1):44–50 .
8. Watanabe S, Hanaoka K, Shibata Y, Kaida H, Ishii K. Usefulness of respiratory-gated 18F-FDG PET/CT scan protocol in patients having positive myocardial 18F-FDG uptake. Nucl Med Commun. 2019; 40(3):235–41 .
9. Kasuya T, Tateishi U, Suzuki K, Daisaki H, Nishiyama Y, Hata M, et al. Role of respiratory-gated PET/CT for pancreatic tumors: A preliminary result. Eur J Radiol. 2013; 82(1):69–74 .
10. Suenaga Y, Kitajima K, Aoki H, Okunaga T, Kono A, Matsumoto I, et al. Respiratory-gated 18F-FDG PET/CT for the diagnosis of liver metastasis. Eur J Radiol. 2013; 82(10):1696–701.
11. Crivellaro C, De Ponti E, Elisei F, Morzenti S, Picchio M, Bettinardi V, et al. Added diagnostic value of respiratory-gated 4D 18F–FDG PET/CT in the detection of liver lesions: a multicenter study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018; 45(1):102–9 .
12. Tahari AK, Lodge MA, Wahl RL. Respiratory-Gated PET/CT versus Delayed Images for the Quantitative Evaluation of Lower Pulmonary and Hepatic Lesions. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2014; 58(3):277–82 .
13. Vallot D, Caselles O, Chaltiel L, Fernandez A, Gabiache E, Dierickx L, et al. A clinical evaluation of the impact of the Bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction algorithm on PET FDG metrics. Nucl Med Commun. 2017; 38(11):979–84 .
14. Sah B-R, Stolzmann P, Delso G, Wollenweber SD, Hüllner M, Hakami YA, et al. Clinical evaluation of a block sequential regularized expectation maximization reconstruction algorithm in 18F-FDG PET/CT studies. Nucl Med Commun. 2017; 38(1):57–66 .
15. Urata K, Kawasaki S, Matsunami H, Hashikura Y, Ikegami T, Ishizone S, et al. Calculation of child and adult standard liver volume for liver transplantation. Hepatology. 1995; 21(5):1317–21 .
16. Donati OF, Hany TF, Reiner CS, von Schulthess GK, Marincek B, Seifert B, et al. Value of retrospective fusion of PET and MR images in detection of hepatic metastases: comparison with 18F-FDG PET/CT and Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI. J Nucl Med. 2010; 51(5):692–9 .
17. Cornelis F, Storchios V, Violari E, Sofocleous CT, Schoder H, Durack JC, et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT Is an Immediate Imaging Biomarker of Treatment Success After Liver Metastasis Ablation. J Nucl Med. 2016; 57(7):1052–7 .
18. Shim JR, Lee SD, Han SS, Lee SJ, Lee DE, Kim SK, et al. Prognostic significance of 18F-FDG PET/CT in patients with colorectal cancer liver metastases after hepatectomy. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2018; 44(5):670–6 .
19. Parvizi N, Franklin JM, McGowan DR, Teoh EJ, Bradley KM, Gleeson F V. Does a novel penalized likelihood reconstruction of 18F-FDG PET-CT improve signal-to-background in colorectal liver metastases? Eur J Radiol. 2015; 84(10):1873–8 .
20. Ahn S, Ross SG, Asma E, Miao J, Jin X, Cheng L, et al. Quantitative comparison of OSEM and penalized likelihood image reconstruction using relative difference penalties for clinical PET. Phys Med Biol. 2015; 60(15):5733–51 .