Positron emission tomography-computed tomography standardized uptake values in clinical practice and assessing response to therapy

Paul E. Kinahan, James Fletcher

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

215 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The use of standardized uptake values (SUVs) is now common place in clinical 2-deoxy-2-[18F] fluoro-D-glucose (FDG) position emission tomography-computed tomography oncology imaging and has a specific role in assessing patient response to cancer therapy. Ideally, the use of SUVs removes variability introduced by differences in patient size and the amount of injected FDG. However, in practice there are several sources of bias and variance that are introduced in the measurement of FDG uptake in tumors and also in the conversion of the image count data to SUVs. In this article the overall imaging process is reviewed and estimates of the magnitude of errors, where known, are given. Recommendations are provided for best practices in improving SUV accuracy.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)496-505
Number of pages10
JournalSeminars in Ultrasound CT and MRI
Volume31
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 2010

Fingerprint

Emission-Computed Tomography
Glucose
Fluorodeoxyglucose F18
Practice Guidelines
Neoplasms
Tomography
Therapeutics
Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

@article{1233b82b867f41a8ba2dd72d48166cd4,
title = "Positron emission tomography-computed tomography standardized uptake values in clinical practice and assessing response to therapy",
abstract = "The use of standardized uptake values (SUVs) is now common place in clinical 2-deoxy-2-[18F] fluoro-D-glucose (FDG) position emission tomography-computed tomography oncology imaging and has a specific role in assessing patient response to cancer therapy. Ideally, the use of SUVs removes variability introduced by differences in patient size and the amount of injected FDG. However, in practice there are several sources of bias and variance that are introduced in the measurement of FDG uptake in tumors and also in the conversion of the image count data to SUVs. In this article the overall imaging process is reviewed and estimates of the magnitude of errors, where known, are given. Recommendations are provided for best practices in improving SUV accuracy.",
author = "Kinahan, {Paul E.} and James Fletcher",
year = "2010",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1053/j.sult.2010.10.001",
language = "English",
volume = "31",
pages = "496--505",
journal = "Seminars in Ultrasound, CT and MRI",
issn = "0887-2171",
publisher = "W.B. Saunders Ltd",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Positron emission tomography-computed tomography standardized uptake values in clinical practice and assessing response to therapy

AU - Kinahan, Paul E.

AU - Fletcher, James

PY - 2010/12

Y1 - 2010/12

N2 - The use of standardized uptake values (SUVs) is now common place in clinical 2-deoxy-2-[18F] fluoro-D-glucose (FDG) position emission tomography-computed tomography oncology imaging and has a specific role in assessing patient response to cancer therapy. Ideally, the use of SUVs removes variability introduced by differences in patient size and the amount of injected FDG. However, in practice there are several sources of bias and variance that are introduced in the measurement of FDG uptake in tumors and also in the conversion of the image count data to SUVs. In this article the overall imaging process is reviewed and estimates of the magnitude of errors, where known, are given. Recommendations are provided for best practices in improving SUV accuracy.

AB - The use of standardized uptake values (SUVs) is now common place in clinical 2-deoxy-2-[18F] fluoro-D-glucose (FDG) position emission tomography-computed tomography oncology imaging and has a specific role in assessing patient response to cancer therapy. Ideally, the use of SUVs removes variability introduced by differences in patient size and the amount of injected FDG. However, in practice there are several sources of bias and variance that are introduced in the measurement of FDG uptake in tumors and also in the conversion of the image count data to SUVs. In this article the overall imaging process is reviewed and estimates of the magnitude of errors, where known, are given. Recommendations are provided for best practices in improving SUV accuracy.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=78649970617&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=78649970617&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1053/j.sult.2010.10.001

DO - 10.1053/j.sult.2010.10.001

M3 - Article

C2 - 21147377

AN - SCOPUS:78649970617

VL - 31

SP - 496

EP - 505

JO - Seminars in Ultrasound, CT and MRI

JF - Seminars in Ultrasound, CT and MRI

SN - 0887-2171

IS - 6

ER -