The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 47 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Repeatability of SUV in Oncologic 18F-FDG PET
Open accessAbstract
F-FDG PET. Growing literature suggests that the difference between SUVs measured before and after treatment can be used to predict tumor response at an early stage. SUV is, however, associated with multiple sources of variability, and to best use SUV for response assessment, an understanding of the repeatability of the technique is required. Test-retest studies involve repeated scanning of the same patient on the same scanner using the same protocol no more than a few days apart and provide basic information on the repeatability of the technique. Multiple test-retest studies have been performed to assess SUV repeatability, although a comparison of reports is complicated by the use of different methodologies and statistical metrics. This article reviews the available data, addressing issues such as different repeatability metrics, relative units, log transformation, and asymmetric limits of repeatability. When acquired with careful attention to protocol, tumor SUV has a within-subject coefficient of variation of approximately 10%. In a response assessment setting, SUV reductions of more than 25% and increases of more than 33% are unlikely to be due to measurement variability. Broader margins may be required for sites with less rigorous protocol compliance, but in general, SUV is a highly repeatable imaging biomarker that is ideally suited to monitoring tumor response to treatment in individual patients.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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 source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Despite the common use of SUVmax in clinical practice, arising from its convenience, SUVpeak and SUVmean have been shown to be slightly less variable under test-retest conditions [189,191].”
From Influences on PET Quantification and Interpretation (2022) · cites this paper as [191]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Measuring agreement in method comparison studies
Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1999) · Statistical Methods in Medical Research · doi:10.1177/096228029900800204 · Cited by 9,619
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
Self-citationPhelps, M. E., Huang, S. C., Hoffman, E. J., Selin, C. E., Sokoloff, L., & Kuhl, D. E. (1979) · Annals of Neurology · doi:10.1002/ana.410060502 · Cited by 2,417
Young, H. E., Baum, R. P., Cremerius, U., Herholz, K., Hoekstra, O. S., Lammertsma, A. A., Pruim, J., & Price, P. (1999) · European Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1016/s0959-8049(99)00229-4 · Cited by 1,716
SUV: standard uptake or silly useless value?
Keyes, J. W. (1995) · PubMed · Cited by 803
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 801
Hutchings, M., Loft, A., Hansen, M., Pedersen, L., Buhl, T., Jurlander, J., Buus, S., Keiding, S., d'Amore, F., Boesen, A., et al. (2006) · Blood · doi:10.1182/blood-2005-06-2252 · Cited by 757
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
A Systematic Review of the Factors Affecting Accuracy of SUV Measurements
Adams, M. C., Turkington, T. G., Wilson, J. M., & Wong, T. Z. (2010) · American Journal of Roentgenology · doi:10.2214/ajr.10.4923 · Cited by 662
(2004) · PubMed · Cited by 653
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 201–214 of 214
Wang, H., Chen, D., Liu, Z., Zhao, X., Zhang, J., & Zhang, D. (2026) · BMC Cancer · doi:10.1186/s12885-026-16140-w
Direction-aware deformable registration for respiratory motion correction in PET/CT imaging
Zhou, H., He, L., Wang, S., Wu, Z., & He, J. (2026) · Radiography · doi:10.1016/j.radi.2026.103428
Metabolic and morphological assessment of carbon ion radiotherapy response in sacral chordoma
Gantumur, B., Taketomi-Takahashi, A., Kodaira, S., Hirasawa, H., Fukushima, Y., Shibuya, K., Miyasaka, Y., Ohno, T., & Tsushima, Y. (2026) · Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.phro.2026.101001
Korodimos, N. L., Wojtyś, M. E., Kostopanagiotou, K., Santaitidis, I., Tomos, I., Foukas, P., Kontzoglou, K., Koumarianou, A. A., Mitsos, S., Moisiadis, A., et al. (2026) · Journal of Clinical Medicine · doi:10.3390/jcm15114100
Kheruka, S., Al-Rashdi, S., Al-Maymani, N., Raii, T., Al-Makhmari, N., Al-Saidi, H., Al-Balushi, A., Jain, A., Usmani, S., Riyami, K. A., et al. (2026) · Indian Journal of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.25259/ijnm_35_2026
Voxel-wise Repeatability of [18F]FDG PET/MRI Quantitative Metrics in Cervical Cancer
Fraum, T. J., Nagarajan, P., & Wahl, R. L. (2026) · Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging · doi:10.1007/s13139-026-01038-z
Kheruka, S. C., Al-Rashdi, S., Al-Maymani, N., Al-Balushi, A., Raii, T. A. A., Al-Makhmari, N., Jayakrishnan, V. V., Jain, A., Riyami, K. A., & Al-Sukaiti, R. (2026) · Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology · doi:10.2967/jnmt.125.271634
Decomposition‐based harmonization for quantitative PET imaging across scanners and radiotracers
Zhao, S., Huang, Q., Nie, B., Zhang, T., Zuo, C. Y., Zhang, G., Mao, G. G., & Shan, B. (2026) · Medical Physics · doi:10.1002/mp.70545
Kim, J. W., Kamil, A., Lee, J., Novsarka, I., & Haldar, P. (2026) · Journal of Visualized Experiments · doi:10.3791/69175
Mourath, D., Romdhani, N. S., Bergman, V., Siikanen, J., Tran, T., Alhuseinalkhudhur, A., Kistner, A., & Altena, R. (2026) · Cancers · doi:10.3390/cancers18152514
Fluorodeoxyglucose PET in Radiation Oncology Planning
Brown, R. N., Garlapati, J., Rudra, S. F., & Takalkar, A. M. (2026) · PET Clinics · doi:10.1016/j.cpet.2026.06.013
Nakamura, S., Kuribayashi, A., Oki, A., Watanabe, H., Imaizumi, A., Taguchi, M., & Miura, M. (2026) · Oral Radiology · doi:10.1007/s11282-026-00966-y
Courtens, J., Muller, F. M., Li, E. J., Vanhove, C., Vandenberghe, S., Pantel, A. R., Karp, J. S., & Daube-Witherspoon, M. E. (2026) · medRxiv · doi:10.64898/2026.08.25.26361357
Fraum, T. J., Calderara, G., An, H., Mahdjoub, H., Larson, P. E. Z., Ravanfar, V., Laforest, R. A., & Hope, T. A. (2026) · Journal of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.2967/jnumed.126.272891
Metadata
- Authors
- Lodge, M. A.
- Affiliations
- Johns Hopkins University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Lodge, Martin A.
- ORCID
- Lodge, Martin A.
- Venue
- Journal of Nuclear Medicine
- Publisher
- Society of Nuclear Medicine
- Published
- 2017-02-23
- Volume
- 58
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 523-532
- ISSN
- 0161-5505 (ISSN-L)
- 2159-662X
- PMC
- PMC5373499
- OpenAlex
- W2590848133
- Cited by
- 214
- References
- 47
- Citations by year
- 2026: 26 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 14
- FWCI
- 3.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Nuclear Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Radiological Society of North America (HHSN268201300071C)
- Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
- National Institutes of Health (HHSN268201300071C)
- National Cancer Institute (U01CA140204)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Medical Imaging Techniques and Applications
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Lung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
- Keywords
- standardized uptake value, 18F-FDG PET, test-retest repeatability, tumor response assessment, within-subject coefficient of variation, imaging biomarkers, treatment response monitoring, logarithmic transformation, tumor imaging
- MeSH terms
- Biological Transport, Humans, Neoplasms, Reproducibility of Results, 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
