ArticleAnnals of nuclear medicine2025
Estimation of liver standardized uptake value in F18-FDG PET/CT scanning: impact of different malignancies, blood glucose level, body weight normalization, and imaging systems.
Article in Annals of nuclear medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe aim of this work was to investigate homogeneity and stability of liver SUV in terms of different malignancies considering different body normalization schemes and blood glucose concentrations as well as PET/CT imaging systems.
methodsThe study included 207 patients with four different types of cancers namely breast, lymphoma, lung, and bone-metastasis. Data acquisition was performed with GE Discovery IQ, Biograph mCT, uMI 550, and Ingenuity TF64 after a single intravenous injection of 194 ± 67.5 MBq of 18F-FDG.
resultsIn body weight normalization, SUVmax and SUVmean in bone-mets as well as SUVmean in lung patients were not statistically different among scanners especially for data corrected for glucose levels (p = 0.062, 0.121, and 0.150, respectively). In SUVlbm derived from lung patients, there was no significant differences in Philips in comparison to GE and Siemens (both, p > 0.05) for data corrected and not corrected for glucose levels. In SUVbsa, the only non-significant difference revealed among scanners was in the measurements of SUVmean obtained from lung and bone-mets (p = 0.107 and 0.114) both corrected for glucose levels. In SUVbmi, SUVmean of lung and bone-mets as well as SUVmax of bone-mets showed a non-significant differences among the four different scanning systems (p = 0.303, 0.091, and 0.222, respectively) for data corrected for glucose levels.
conclusionLiver glucose correction needs further investigations in individual tumors but could be potentially affected by whether measurements are made on SUVmean versus SUVmax, body weight normalization, as well as the imaging system. As such, selection of normalization to body weight method should be carefully selected before clinical adoption and clinically adopted and body surface area would provide the highest correlation. As such, normalization of body weight should be carefully made before clinical adoption. SUVmean proves to be useful and stable metric when liver is corrected for blood glucose levels.
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.