ArticleNuclear medicine communications2019
The appropriate whole body metric for calculating standardised uptake value and the influence of sex.
Article in Nuclear medicine communications, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Validation of quantitative [Annals of nuclear medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Sex- and Age-Related Differences in Physiological [Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- Comparison of standardized uptake value and standardized uptake lean body mass metrics inQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- SUV normalisation and reference tissue selection for [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025Observational
- Improving accuracy of SUV estimates in paediatric oncology: Recommending against the use of body weight corrected SUV in [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025Article
- Comprehensive literature review of oral and intravenous contrast-enhanced PET/CT: a step forward?Frontiers in medicine · 2024Review
- Different hydration protocols for the quantification of healthy tissue uptake of half-doseQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2023Article
- Impact of Reduced Image Noise on Deauville Scores in Patients with Lymphoma Scanned on a Long-Axial Field-of-View PET/CT-Scanner.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Reproducibility of [18F]FDG PET/CT liver SUV as reference or normalisation factor.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2023Article
- Rapid Standardized CT-Based Method to Determine Lean Body Mass SUV for PET-A Significant Improvement Over Prediction Equations.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo compare weight, lean body mass and body surface area for calculation of standardised uptake value (SUV) in fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose PET/computed tomography, taking sex into account. PATIENTS AND
methodsThis was a retrospective study of 161 (97 men) patients. Maximum standardised uptake value (SUVmax) and mean standardised uptake value (SUVmean) were obtained from a 3-cm region of interest over the right lobe of the liver and scaled to weight, scaled to lean body mass (SUL) and scaled to body surface area (SUA). Mean hepatic computed tomography density was used to adjust SUVmean for hepatic fat (SUVFA). Hepatic SUV indices were divided by SUV from left ventricular cavity, thereby, eliminating whole body metric, to obtain a surrogate of blood fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose clearance into liver, and multiplied by blood glucose to give a surrogate of hepatic glucose uptake rate (mSUV).
resultsSULmax, SUAmax and all scaled to weight indices correlated strongly with weight. SULmean, SULFA, SUAmean and SUAFA, however, correlated weakly or not at all with weight, nor with their corresponding whole body metric in men or women, but correlated strongly when the sexes were combined into one group. This was the result of sex differences in SUL (greater in men) and SUA (greater in women). There was, however, no sex difference in mSUV.
conclusionWeight is unsuitable for calculating SUV. SUL and SUA are also inappropriate as maxima but appropriate as mean and fat-adjusted values. However, SUL is recommended for both sexes because SUA is influenced by both body fat and weight. Sex differences in SUL and SUA give rise to misleading correlations when sexes are combined into one group.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.