ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2025
Comparison of standardized uptake value and standardized uptake lean body mass metrics in
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Segmentation method comparison for baseline [EJNMMI physics · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The maximum standardized uptake value normalized to body weight (BW) (SUVmax) is a commonly used metric in Methods: We conducted a retrospective, single-center analysis of PET/computed tomography (CT) scans from patients with CLL or FL, measuring the most avid lesion using both SUVmax and SULmax. High-grade transformation was identified through pathological records within 3 months after the scan, and receiver operating characteristic curves were used to compare the diagnostic performance of SUVmax and SULmax. Results: A total of 32 patients with CLL and 58 with FL were included. Some patients had more than one biopsy, giving a total of 43 samples for CLL and 91 samples for FL. The receiver operating curve analysis showed insufficient evidence (P=0.92) of a statistical difference between SUVmax and SULmax in predicting transformation for CLL, with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.918 for SUVmax and 0.921 for SULmax. In FL, SULmax also showed similar performance (AUC =0.754) to SUVmax (AUC =0.745) for predicting transformation to diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, with the difference again not significant (P=0.93). When grade 3B FL was also considered to be transformed lymphoma, SUVmax was effectively equal (P=0.96) to SULmax (AUC =0.932 and 0.931, respectively). Optimal cutoffs were about 7 to 8 for both diseases using SUVmax, and 5 for CLL or transformation of FL to a higher-grade lymphoma, but 9 if grade 3B was not counted. Conclusions: Both SUVmax and SULmax can be reliably used for assessing the transformation of CLL and FL to aggressive lymphomas on 18F-FDG PET/CT. Given SULmax's stability with respect to weight changes, it may be more appropriate for assessing therapeutic response in patients with significant weight fluctuations. Further studies are needed to refine the use of these metrics in clinical practice.
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.