A Systematic Review of the Factors Affecting Accuracy of SUV Measurements
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: There is growing interest in using PET/CT for evaluating early response to therapy in cancer treatment. Although widely available and convenient to use, standardized uptake value (SUV) measurements can be influenced by a variety of biologic and technologic factors. Many of these factors can be addressed with close attention to detail and appropriate quality control. This article will review factors potentially affecting SUV measurements and provide recommendations on ways to minimize when using serial PET to assess early response to therapy. CONCLUSION: Scanner and reconstruction parameters can significantly affect SUV measurements. When using serial SUV measurements to assess early response to therapy, imaging should be performed on the same scanner using the same image acquisition and reconstruction protocols. In addition, attention to detail is required for accurate determination of the administered radiopharmaceutical dose.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The liver is the only reference region that has so far been studied and used extensively to eliminate or reduce the effect of factors such as body weight, obesity, blood glucose level, and 18F-FDG uptake time on SUVmax.
“The liver is the only reference region that so far has been studied and used extensively to eliminate or reduce the effect of various factors such as body weight, obesity, the blood glucose level, and 18F-FDG uptake time on SUVmax;[32]”
From Intrapatient variability of 18F-FDG uptake in normal tissues (2022) · cites this paper as [32]
Using quantitative PET for patient selection is difficult in clinical practice because SUV measurements not obtained in a well-conducted clinical trial are subject to variability due to technical factors such as the PET scanner used and the acquisition and reconstruction parameters.
“Using quantitative PET for patient selection is difficult in clinical practice because SUV measurements not obtained in a well-conducted clinical trial are subject to variability. This is because of technical factors such as the PET scanner used and the acquisition and reconstruction parameters (23–26).”
Cites
From RECIST to PERCIST: Evolving Considerations for PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors
Wahl, R. L., Jacene, H., Kasamon, Y., & Lodge, M. A. (2009) · Journal of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.2967/jnumed.108.057307 · Cited by 3,777 · see citing works
Pitfalls in Oncologic Diagnosis with FDG PET Imaging: Physiologic and Benign Variants
SHREVE, P. D., Anzai, Y., & Wahl, R. L. (1999) · Radiographics · doi:10.1148/radiographics.19.1.g99ja0761 · Cited by 829 · see citing works
SUV: standard uptake or silly useless value?
Keyes, J. W. (1995) · PubMed · Cited by 803 · see citing works
Lordick, F., Ott, K., Krause, B., Weber, W., Becker, K., Stein, H. J., Lorenzen, S., Schuster, T., Wieder, H. A., Herrmann, K., et al. (2007) · The Lancet Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(07)70244-9 · Cited by 803 · see citing works
Shankar, L. K., Hoffman, J. M., Bacharach, S. L., Graham, M. M., Karp, J. S., Lammertsma, A. A., Larson, S. M., Mankoff, D. A., Siegel, B. A., den Abbeele, A. V., et al. (2006) · PubMed · Cited by 677 · see citing works
Progress and Promise of FDG-PET Imaging for Cancer Patient Management and Oncologic Drug Development
Kelloff, G. J., Hoffman, J. M., Johnson, B. E., Scher, H. I., Siegel, B. A., Cheng, E. Y., Cheson, B. D., O’Shaughnessy, J., Guyton, K. Z., Mankoff, D. A., et al. (2005) · Clinical Cancer Research · doi:10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-04-2626 · Cited by 672 · see citing works
(2004) · PubMed · Cited by 653 · see citing works
Zasadny, K. R., & Wahl, R. L. (1993) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiology.189.3.8234714 · Cited by 633 · see citing works
Kinahan, P. E., & Fletcher, J. W. (2010) · Seminars in Ultrasound, CT and MRI · doi:10.1053/j.sult.2010.10.001 · Cited by 631 · see citing works
(1993) · PubMed · Cited by 398 · see citing works
18F-FDG PET and PET/CT in the Evaluation of Cancer Treatment Response
Ben‐Haim, S., & Ell, P. J. (2009) · Journal of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.2967/jnumed.108.054205 · Cited by 354 · see citing works
Westerterp, M., Pruim, J., Oyen, W. J. G., Hoekstra, O. S., Paans, A. M. J., Visser, E. P., van Lanschot, J. J. B., Sloof, G. W., & Boellaard, R. (2006) · European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging · doi:10.1007/s00259-006-0224-1 · Cited by 294 · see citing works
The CT motion quantitation of lung lesions and its impact on PET-measured SUVs.
Erdi, Y. E., Nehmeh, S. A., Pan, T., Pevsner, A., Rosenzweig, K. E., Mageras, G. S., Yorke, E. D., Schöder, H. M., Hsiao, W., Squire, O. D., et al. (2004) · PubMed · Cited by 282 · see citing works
Impact of Time-of-Flight on PET Tumor Detection
Kadrmas, D. J., Casey, M. E., Conti, M., Jakoby, B. W., Lois, C., & Townsend, D. W. (2009) · Journal of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.2967/jnumed.109.063016 · Cited by 277 · see citing works
Boellaard, R., Oyen, W., Hoekstra, C., Hoekstra, O., Visser, E., Willemsen, A., Arends, B., Verzijlbergen, F., Zijlstra, J., Paans, A., et al. (2008) · European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging · doi:10.1007/s00259-008-0874-2 · Cited by 265 · see citing works
Sugawara, Y., Zasadny, K. R., Neuhoff, A. W., & Wahl, R. L. (1999) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiology.213.2.r99nv37521 · Cited by 265 · see citing works
Within-patient variability of (18)F-FDG: standardized uptake values in normal tissues.
Paquet, N., Albert, A., Foidart, J., & Hustinx, R. (2004) · PubMed · Cited by 257 · see citing works
Kim, C. K., Gupta, N. C., Chandramouli, B., & Alavi, A. A. (1994) · PubMed · Cited by 229 · see citing works
Jadvar, H., Alavi, A. A., & Gambhir, S. S. (2009) · Journal of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.2967/jnumed.108.054098 · Cited by 226 · see citing works
Francis, R., Byrne, M., van der Schaaf, A. A., Bouček, J., Nowak, A., Phillips, M., Price, R., Patrikeos, A., Musk, A., & Millward, M. (2007) · Journal of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.2967/jnumed.107.042333 · Cited by 218 · see citing works
Sarcoma tumor FDG uptake measured by PET and patient outcome: a retrospective analysis
Eary, J. F., O’Sullivan, F., Powitan, Y., et al. (2002) · European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging · doi:10.1007/s00259-002-0859-5 · Cited by 214 · see citing works
Saquib, N., Flatt, S. W., Natarajan, L., Thomson, C. A., Bardwell, W. A., Caan, B. J., Rock, C. L., & Pierce, J. P. (2006) · Breast Cancer Research and Treatment · doi:10.1007/s10549-006-9442-2 · Cited by 208 · see citing works
18F-FDG PET for Mediastinal Staging of Lung Cancer: Which SUV Threshold Makes Sense?
Hellwig, D., Graeter, T. P., Ukena, D., Gröschel, A., Sybrecht, G. W., Schaefers, H.-J., & Kirsch, C.-M. (2007) · Journal of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.2967/jnumed.107.044362 · Cited by 202 · see citing works
Nahmias, C., & Wahl, L. M. (2008) · Journal of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.2967/jnumed.108.054239 · Cited by 199 · see citing works
Tong, S., Alessio, A. M., & Kinahan, P. E. (2010) · Physics in Medicine and Biology · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/55/5/013 · Cited by 188 · see citing works
Breast imaging with fluorine-18-FDG PET: quantitative image analysis.
Avril, N. E., Bense, S., Ziegler, S. I., Dose, J., Weber, W., Laubenbacher, C., Römer, W., Jänicke, F., & Schwaiger, M. (1997) · PubMed · Cited by 174 · see citing works
Comparison of simplified quantitative analyses of FDG uptake
Graham, M. M., Peterson, L. M., & Hayward, R. M. (2000) · Nuclear Medicine and Biology · doi:10.1016/s0969-8051(00)00143-8 · Cited by 169 · see citing works
Holdsworth, C. H., Badawi, R. D., Manola, J. B., et al. (2007) · American Journal of Roentgenology · doi:10.2214/ajr.07.2496 · Cited by 167 · see citing works
Influence of reconstruction iterations on 18F-FDG PET/CT standardized uptake values.
Jaskowiak, C., Bianco, J. A., Perlman, S. B., & Fine, J. P. (2005) · PubMed · Cited by 162 · see citing works
Velasquez, L. M., Boellaard, R., Kollia, G. D., Hayes, W., Hoekstra, O. S., Lammertsma, A. A., & Galbraith, S. M. (2009) · Journal of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.2967/jnumed.109.063347 · Cited by 135 · see citing works
Optimum scanning protocol for FDG-PET evaluation of pulmonary malignancy
Lowe, V. J. (1995) · Lung Cancer · doi:10.1016/0169-5002(95)90601-0 · Cited by 132 · see citing works
Scheuermann, J. S., Saffer, J. R., Karp, J. S., Levering, A., & Siegel, B. A. (2009) · Journal of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.2967/jnumed.108.057455 · Cited by 128 · see citing works
Monitoring chemotherapy and radiotherapy of solid tumors
Weber, W., & Wieder, H. (2006) · European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging · doi:10.1007/s00259-006-0133-3 · Cited by 126 · see citing works
Izquierdo‐Garcia, D., Davies, J. R., Graves, M. J., et al. (2008) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.108.521393 · Cited by 116 · see citing works
Benz, M., Evilevitch, V., Allen-Auerbach, M., Eilber, F. C., Phelps, M. E., Czernin, J. G., & Weber, W. (2008) · Journal of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.2967/jnumed.107.050187 · Cited by 107 · see citing works
Comparison of different SUV-based methods for monitoring cytotoxic therapy with FDG PET
Stahl, A. R., Ott, K., Schwaiger, M., et al. (2004) · European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging · doi:10.1007/s00259-004-1626-6 · Cited by 95 · see citing works
Measuring [18F]FDG uptake in breast cancer during chemotherapy: comparison of analytical methods
Krak, N. C., van der Hoeven, J. J. M., Hoekstra, O. S., Twisk, J. W. R., van der Wall, E., & Lammertsma, A. A. (2003) · European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging · doi:10.1007/s00259-003-1127-z · Cited by 94 · see citing works
Multicenter comparison of calibration and cross calibration of PET scanners.
Geworski, L., Knoop, B. O., de Wit, M., Ivančević, V., Bares, R., & Munz, D. L. (2002) · PubMed · Cited by 86 · see citing works
Quantitative techniques in 18FDG PET scanning in oncology
Castell, F. A., & Cook, G. (2008) · British Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6604330 · Cited by 80 · see citing works
Jacene, H. A., Leboulleux, S., Baba, S., Chatzifotiadis, D., Goudarzi, B., Teytelbaum, O., Horton, K. M., Kamel, I. R., Macura, K. J., Tsai, H., et al. (2009) · Journal of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.2967/jnumed.109.063321 · Cited by 73 · see citing works
Increasing Uptake Time in FDG-PET: Standardized Uptake Values in Normal Tissues at 1 versus 3 h
Chin, B. B., Green, E. D., Turkington, T. G., Hawk, T. C., & Coleman, R. E. (2009) · Molecular Imaging and Biology · doi:10.1007/s11307-008-0177-9 · Cited by 65 · see citing works
Self-citationActon, P. D., Zhuang, H., & Alavi, A. A. (2004) · Radiologic Clinics of North America · doi:10.1016/j.rcl.2004.08.010 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
Krabbe, C. A., Balink, H., Roodenburg, J. L. N., et al. (2011) · International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.ijom.2011.06.023 · Cited by 51 · see citing works
Glucose-normalized standardized uptake value from (18)F-FDG PET in classifying lymphomas.
Wong, C.-Y. O., Thie, J. A., Parling-Lynch, K. J., et al. (2005) · PubMed · Cited by 45 · see citing works
Erselcan, T., Turgut, B., Doğan, D. Ö., & Özdemir, S. (2002) · European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging · doi:10.1007/s00259-002-0974-3 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
Molecular imaging in oncology: the acceptance of PET/CT and the emergence of MR/PET imaging
Schiepers, C. W., & Dahlbom, M. L. (2010) · European Radiology · doi:10.1007/s00330-010-2033-y · Cited by 40 · see citing works
SUV and segmentation: pressing challenges in tumour assessment and treatment
Lucignani, G. (2009) · European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging · doi:10.1007/s00259-009-1085-1 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
S-100B and FDG-PET/CT in Therapy Response Assessment of Melanoma Patients
Strobel, K., Skalsky, J., Steinert, H. C., et al. (2007) · Dermatology · doi:10.1159/000106575 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Kamibayashi, T., Tsuchida, T., Demura, Y., Tsujikawa, T., Okazawa, H., Kudoh, T., & Kimura, H. (2008) · Molecular Imaging and Biology · doi:10.1007/s11307-008-0132-9 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
PET for response assessment in oncology: radiotherapy and chemotherapy
Weber, W. (2005) · British Journal of Radiology · doi:10.1259/bjr/59640473 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Quantitative Effects of Contrast Enhanced CT Attenuation Correction on PET SUV Measurements
Bunyaviroch, T., Turkington, T. G., Wong, T. Z., Wilson, J. W., Colsher, J. G., & Coleman, R. E. (2007) · Molecular Imaging and Biology · doi:10.1007/s11307-007-0126-z · Cited by 29 · see citing works
Self-citationHarvie, M., Campbell, I. T., Thatcher, N., et al. (2003) · Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics · doi:10.1046/j.1365-277x.2003.00459.x · Cited by 29 · see citing works
Hadi, M., Bacharach, S. L., Whatley, M. A., et al. (2008) · Nuclear Medicine and Biology · doi:10.1016/j.nucmedbio.2008.02.007 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Vriens, D., de Geus‐Oei, L., van Laarhoven, H. W. M., Timmer-Bonte, J. N. H., Krabbe, P. F. M., Visser, E. P., & Oyen, W. J. G. (2009) · Nuclear Medicine Communications · doi:10.1097/mnm.0b013e32832bdc80 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Automated striatal uptake analysis of 18F-FDOPA PET images applied to Parkinson’s disease patients
Chang, I., Lue, K., Hsieh, H., Liu, S., & Kao, C. K. (2011) · Annals of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.1007/s12149-011-0533-8 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Bochud, F. O., Laedermann, J., Baechler, S., et al. (2011) · Medical Physics · doi:10.1118/1.3596528 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Influence of N-butylscopolamine on SUV in FDG PET of the bowel
Sanghera, B., Emmott, J., Wellsted, D. M., et al. (2009) · Annals of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.1007/s12149-009-0263-3 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Kinahan, P. E., & Fletcher, J. W. (2010) · Seminars in Ultrasound, CT and MRI · doi:10.1053/j.sult.2010.10.001 · Cited by 631 · see citing works
Mapping of human brown adipose tissue in lean and obese young men
Leitner, B. P., Huang, S., Brychta, R. J., Duckworth, C. J., Baskin, A. S., McGehee, S., Tal, I., Dieckmann, W., Gupta, G., Kolodny, G. M., et al. (2017) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1705287114 · Cited by 530 · see citing works
Teoh, E. J., McGowan, D. R., Macpherson, R. E., Bradley, K. M., & Gleeson, F. V. (2015) · Journal of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.2967/jnumed.115.159301 · Cited by 265 · see citing works
Repeatability of SUV in Oncologic <sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET
Lodge, M. A. (2017) · Journal of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.2967/jnumed.116.186353 · Cited by 214 · see citing works
EANM/EARL FDG-PET/CT accreditation - summary results from the first 200 accredited imaging systems
Kaalep, A., Sera, T., Oyen, W., Krause, B. J., Chiti, A., Liu, Y., & Boellaard, R. (2018) · European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging · doi:10.1007/s00259-017-3853-7 · Cited by 174 · see citing works
Kuo, P. H., Morris, M. J., Hesterman, J., Kendi, A. T., Rahbar, K., Wei, X. X., Fang, B., Adra, N., Garje, R., Michalski, J. M., et al. (2024) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.233460 · Cited by 119 · see citing works
Quantitative implications of the updated EARL 2019 PET–CT performance standards
Kaalep, A., Burggraaff, C. N., Pieplenbosch, S., Verwer, E. E., Sera, T., Zijlstra, J., Hoekstra, O. S., Oprea-Lager, D. E., & Boellaard, R. (2019) · EJNMMI Physics · doi:10.1186/s40658-019-0257-8 · Cited by 79 · see citing works
Evidence-based management of incidental focal uptake of fluorodeoxyglucose on PET-CT
Pencharz, D., Nathan, M., & Wagner, T. L. (2018) · The British Journal of Radiology · doi:10.1259/bjr.20170774 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
Malladi, A., Viner, M., Jackson, T., Mercier, G., & Subramaniam, R. M. (2013) · Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology · doi:10.1111/1754-9485.12015 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
Otani, T., Hosono, M., Kanagaki, M., Onishi, Y., Matsubara, N., Kawabata, K., & Kimura, H. (2019) · American Journal of Roentgenology · doi:10.2214/ajr.18.20478 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
Kurita, Y., Ichikawa, Y., Nakanishi, T., Tomita, Y., Hasegawa, D., Murashima, S., Hirano, T., & Sakuma, H. (2020) · Annals of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.1007/s12149-020-01446-x · Cited by 29 · see citing works
Intrapatient variability of 18F-FDG uptake in normal tissues
Sayed, M. H. M., Abdelnaim, A. K., & Mohamadien, N. R. (2022) · Journal of Clinical Imaging Science · doi:10.25259/jcis_23_2022 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
- Authors
- Adams, M. C., Turkington, T. G., Wilson, J. M., & Wong, T. Z.
- Affiliations
- Duke Medical Center (US)
- Venue
- American Journal of Roentgenology
- Publisher
- American Roentgen Ray Society
- Published
- 2010-08
- Volume
- 195
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 310-320
- ISSN
- 0002-9580 (ISSN-L)
- 0361-803X
- 1546-3141
- OpenAlex
- W2168021523
- Cited by
- 662
- References
- 57
- Citations by year
- 2026: 37 · 2025: 58 · 2024: 56 · 2023: 39 · 2022: 48 · 2021: 59 · 2020: 43 · 2019: 51 · 2018: 36 · 2017: 42 · 2016: 36 · 2015: 37 · 2014: 35 · 2013: 44 · 2012: 27
- FWCI
- 3.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Journal of Roentgenology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Medical Imaging Techniques and Applications
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Lung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
- Keywords
- standardized uptake value, PET/CT, early response assessment, image acquisition protocol, quality control
- MeSH terms
- Algorithms, Humans, Image Enhancement, Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Models, Biological, Neoplasms, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results, Radiopharmaceuticals, Fluorodeoxyglucose F18, Positron-Emission Tomography
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
