ライフサイエンスコーパス: SUVmax

1 SUVmax analyses were based on uptake 60 min after tracer

2 SUVmax and SUVmean were recorded for normal tissues and

3 SUVmax and SUVmean were significantly associated with PS

4 SUVmax and SUVmean were significantly higher for PET/MRI

5 SUVmax for the largest metastatic lesion was the only va

6 SUVmax in the liver and aorta was determined using autom

7 SUVmax on day 4 in tumor lesions was 4.6 (range, 1.5-13.

8 SUVmax on routine images at 5 or 10 wk and percentage ch

9 SUVmax was also significantly associated with EFS both i

10 SUVmax was measured and correlated with biopsy findings

11 SUVmax was more pronounced under SIM than under EC-D (-6

12 SUVmax was similar in progressive and nonprogressive les

13 SUVmax, BAT volume, and SQUVmax were significantly diffe

14 SUVmax, SUVmean, metabolic tumor volume, and total lesio

15 SUVmax, SUVmean, MTV, and TLG were significantly related

16 SUVmax, SUVmean, SUVpeak, TLG, metabolically active tumo

17 SUVmax-40 is more likely to represent the most metabolic

18 </= 5% and 20 mo for Ki-67 > 5%; P = 0.005), SUVmax (<37.8 vs. >38.0: 16.0 vs. 27.0 mo; P = 0.002), a

19 .01), MUST (p <= 0.001), Low SMD (p < 0.05), SUVmax (p <= 0.001) and TLG (p < 0.001) were associated

20 Vmean_30%), 23.8% (SUVmean_gradient), 23.2% (SUVmax), and 18.5% (SUVpeak) at 1 h after injection.

21 Vmean_30%), 23.8% (SUVmean_gradient), 23.2% (SUVmax), and 18.5% (SUVpeak) at 1 h after injection.

22 ax, 4.2 [range, 1.8-7.9] vs. scores 1 and 2: SUVmax, 8.1 [range, 1.4-40.4]; P = 0.001).

23 y than nonresponding tumors (scores 3 and 4: SUVmax, 4.2 [range, 1.8-7.9] vs. scores 1 and 2: SUVmax,

24 Baseline TMTV was computed with a 41% SUVmax threshold, and PET response was reported using th

25 methods with TMTV measured with a fixed 41% SUVmax threshold method.

26 imilar whatever the methods, adaptive or 41% SUVmax, supporting its use as a strong prognosticator in

27 re compared with those obtained with the 41% SUVmax method.

28 In this series, TMTV computed with the 41% SUVmax threshold is a strong predictor of outcome.

29 hms and methods using a fixed threshold (42% SUVmax).

30 Using SUVmax of 4.04 at week 5, SUVmax of 3.15 at week 10, and 60% decrease from baselin

31 ineated on initial PET/CT scans with 30%-60% SUVmax thresholds were in good to excellent agreement wi

32 ent with the core volume of the relapse (90% SUVmax threshold) (common volume/recurrent volume and ov

33 Anterior-posterior thoracic amplitude, SUVmax, and SUVpeak (SUVmean in a 1-cm-diameter sphere)

34 Advanced stage (IV) (P = 0.026), an SUVmax of less than 37.8 (P = 0.043), and medical therap

35 0 (TLF10) and fluoride tumor volume above an SUVmax of 10 (FTV10).

36 eters: total lesion fluoride uptake above an SUVmax of 10 (TLF10) and fluoride tumor volume above an

37 operating characteristic curve analysis, an SUVmax ratio threshold of 2.1 resulted in 92% sensitivit

38 and 7 +/- 3, respectively (P < 0.01), and an SUVmax of 11 +/- 4.8 and 12 +/- 4, respectively (P < 0.0

39 standard and delayed (18)F-FDG PET/CT for an SUVmax cutoff of greater than 1.32 and 1.88, respectivel

40 placed on the suggestive area to generate an SUVmax; a similar region of interest was placed on adjac

41 though for most foci (18)F-4FMFES PET had an SUVmax similar to that of (18)F-FES PET, tumor contrast

42 The 2 tuberculous lesions showed an SUVmax of 7.8 and 2.5.

43 Using an SUVmax threshold of 10 excludes nearly all normal bone a

44 ecificity of 100%; the optimal cutoff was an SUVmax of 1.54 for (18)F-FES PET, resulting in a sensiti

45 ptimal cutoff for AR-positive lesions was an SUVmax of 1.94 for (18)F-FDHT PET, yielding a sensitivit

46 nterestingly, all of the pericardium with an SUVmax < 4.4 had nondiagnostic results.

47 demonstrating uptake of (68)Ga-PSMA with an SUVmax of 2.0 or more were considered PSMA-positive, and

48 correlation was observed between DeltaBF and SUVmax (r = +0.40, P = 0.01).

49 n, the dimensions, volume, localization, and SUVmax of nodes identified by (68)Ga-PSMA were correlate

50 t, location, CT diameter, CT morphology, and SUVmax were determined.

51 group, the correlations between the size and SUVmax-LN values of metastatic axillary LNs, between tum

52 UVmax-LN values, and between tumour size and SUVmax-LN values were all significant (p<0.05).

53 The correlation between tumour size and SUVmax-T value within both LABC and non-LABC groups was

54 l as the correlation between tumour size and SUVmax-T within each group were evaluated statistically.

55 The correlation between SUVmean and SUVmax for every region was high (R(2) = 0.9989, P < 0.0

56 r injection were used to measure SUVmean and SUVmax in additional regions of the body.

57 SUVmean and SUVmax resulted in coefficients of variation of 5.6% and

58 cted onto the corresponding PETB SUVmean and SUVmax were assessed from the PET images.

59 (18)F FSPG SUVmean and SUVmax were compared.

60 imum standardized uptake values (SUVmean and SUVmax, respectively) with those of (18)F fluorodeoxyglu

61 -131%, and 5%-148% for SUVmean, SUVpeak, and SUVmax, respectively.

62 SUVpeakW and SUVmax-40 MEr-R were significantly lower than the MEr-R

63 tatic axillary LN size, between SUVmax-T and SUVmax-LN values, and between tumour size and SUVmax-LN

64 Any SUVmax below the normal threshold was excluded from anal

65 BAT activity was expressed as volume and as SUVmax of (18)F-FDG.

66 lete metabolic response (cMR) was defined as SUVmax of <4.

67 uptake in prominent lesions was measured as SUVmax Average intrapatient SUVmax (<SUVmax>pt) was comp

68 rize tumors on (18)F-FDG PET images, such as SUVmax, metabolically active tumor volume (MATV), total

69 ocal uptake in the prostate (at 2 h: average SUVmax, 5.1; range, 2.4-9.2) and correlative 3+ staining

70 The average SUVmax of the most active disease site was 9.2 (SD, 6.1)

71 arameters included metrics of tumor avidity (SUVmax/mean/peak), composites of avidity and volume (inc

72 : the median of the mean tumor-to-background SUVmax ratios were significantly higher for 15 and 50 mu

73 The relationship between baseline SUVmax (bSUVmax) and HT risk was assessed using cutoff v

74 FS of 49% (vs. 92% in patients with baseline SUVmax < 10).

75 The best SUVmax cutoff ranged from 37.8 to 38.0.

76 0.29, P = 0.04), but the correlation between SUVmax and Ki-67 after completion of NAC was stronger (r

77 ues and metastatic axillary LN size, between SUVmax-T and SUVmax-LN values, and between tumour size a

78 ize and metastatic axillary LN size, between SUVmax-T values and metastatic axillary LN size, between

79 Three of the PET/MR enterography biomarkers, SUVmax, SI on T2-weighted images x SUVmax, and ADC x SUV

80 In the clinical population, both SUVmax and SUVpeak were significantly increased with DIB

81 The mean BPU SUVmax +/- SD was 1.57 +/- 0.6 for patients with minimal

82 xial skeleton and proximal limbs assessed by SUVmax correlated with the grade of fibrosis.

83 n a patient with non-small cell lung cancer (SUVmax, 10.9; T/B ratio, 8.4) and a patient with cancer

84 ion of tracer accumulation in solid cancers, SUVmax and tumor-to-background (T/B) ratios were determi

85 esults: The median decrease in the corrected SUVmax of the primary breast lesions was 99% (range, 33%

86 The median decrease in the corrected SUVmax of the primary breast lesions was 99% (range, 33%

87 lesions was compared with the corresponding SUVmax measured in routine (18)F-FDG PET.

88 ologic validation for regions with different SUVmax.

89 ed to investigate the role of (68)Ga-DOTANOC SUVmax as a potential prognostic factor in patients with

90 (68)Ga DOTATATE SUVmax relates to grade and Ki-67 and can be used progno

91 d significant differences in (68)Ga-DOTATATE SUVmax between tumors with a Ki-67 of less than 5% and t

92 For (68)Ga-DOTATATE, SUVmax was higher for G1 tumors and lower for G3 tumors

93 , stomach ((18)F FSPG SUVmax, 3.6; (18)F FDG SUVmax, 1.6), and brain ((18)F FSPG SUVmean, 0.08; (18)F

94 ithout significance differences in (18)F-FDG SUVmax Log-rank analysis showed statistically significan

95 Residual (18)F-FLT SUVmax on iPET was associated with an inferior PFS (haza

96 ed close correlation (r = 0.94, P < .001 for SUVmax and r = 0.98, P < .001 for SUVpeak).

97 ed with PSA and ADT (P = 0.018 and 0.004 for SUVmax, respectively; P = 0.025 and 0.007 for SUVmean, r

98 The low concordance for SUVmax between (18)F-fluciclovine and (18)F-FDG suggests

99 ce interval, 0.73-0.96), but concordance for SUVmax was weak (concordance correlation coefficient, 0.

100 No significant cutoff values were found for SUVmax or SUVmean at univariate analysis, whereas MTV60

101 Lesion-level 95% LOA for SUVmax, SUVmean, and SUVtotal was (0.76, 1.32), (0.88, 1

102 e metrics based on a 42% fixed threshold for SUVmax did not correlate with score (TLG, P = 0.505; MTV

103 HT risk was assessed using cutoff values for SUVmax >10 and >20.

104 sion level, the coefficient of variation for SUVmax, SUVmean, and SUVtotal was 14.1%, 6.6%, and 25.5%

105 rmined visually and automatically was found (SUVmax, r(2) = 0.97; SUVmean, r(2) = 0.88; lesion count,

106 (18)F FDG SUVmean, 1.3), stomach ((18)F FSPG SUVmax, 3.6; (18)F FDG SUVmax, 1.6), and brain ((18)F FS

107 In M0 patients, a high SUVmax at baseline was associated with shorter EFS (P <

108 vealed extensive fibrosis in regions of high SUVmax, with an increased number of glucose transporter-

109 In RAS, high SUVmax was associated with worse survival after F-FDG PE

110 )F-FDG-avid CNS disease (P = 0.0357), higher SUVmax (P = 0.0044), and greater mortality (P = 0.0215).

111 , 62.4% of the lesions demonstrated a higher SUVmax and 65.1% a higher contrast than at 1 h after inj

112 4, respectively; P = 0.15), despite a higher SUVmax for (68)Ga-HBED-PSMA than for (68)Ga-THP-PSMA (30

113 relatively larger primary tumours and higher SUVmax values.

114 or to that of (18)F-FLT for both the highest SUVmax (P = 0.039) and the SUVrange (P = 0.012).

115 tumor, and up to 5 lesions with the highest SUVmax in each organ were compared before and after octr

116 MA (P = 0.02), whereas neither the change in SUVmax (P = 1.0) nor the change in SUVmean (P = 1.0) con

117 The change in SUVmax (SUVmax) after 2 cycles was more pronounced in pa

118 The same was found for change in SUVmax and score (P = 0.001).

119 asize the good predictive value of change in SUVmax between baseline and before surgery to assess pat

120 mages at 5 or 10 wk and percentage change in SUVmax from baseline to week 10 were metabolic predictor

121 Changes in SUVmax and MTV between PET1 and PET2 (DeltaSUV1-2; Delta

122 e association of tumor uptake and changes in SUVmax between 0, 5, and 10 wk for both clinical endpoin

123 At 6 wk, a mean decrease in SUVmax of 23.4% compared with baseline was found in 70 e

124 The significance of differences in SUVmax and tumor-to-background ratios between malignant

125 Additionally, substantial differences in SUVmax intraindividually were detected.

126 information reduced the percentage error in SUVmax by 28.5% (P < 0.01).

127 Semiquantitative analysis included SUVmax and the corresponding retention index of SUVmax,

128 sion (M); SUVmax; SUVmean; size-incorporated SUVmax; metabolic tumor volume; and total lesion glycoly

129 was measured as SUVmax Average intrapatient SUVmax (<SUVmax>pt) was compared between HER2+ and HER2-

130 d to predict pathologic complete response is SUVmax in (18)F-FDG PET/CT imaging.

131 racic amplitude (80%), increased mean lesion SUVmax (29%) and SUVpeak (11%), decreased lung backgroun

132 m standardized uptake value within a lesion (SUVmax) and the average SUV within a small volume of int

133 pective of their location within the lesion (SUVmax-40).

134 For each lesion, SUVmax and SUVpeak were determined.

135 h factor levels, whereas baseline lung/liver SUVmax index correlated with platelet-derived growth fac

136 max of ipsilateral axillary LNs (SUVmax-LN), SUVmax of primary tumour (SUVmax-T) and NT ratios (SUVma

137 y tumour (SUVmax-T) and NT ratios (SUVmax-LN/SUVmax-T) were compared between the groups.

138 LN size, SUVmax of ipsilateral axillary LNs (SUVmax-LN), SUVmax of primary tumour (SUVmax-T) and NT r

139 patients, (68)Ga-pentixafor PET had a lower SUVmax in all measured malignant lesions.

140 Median <SUVmax>pt for day 1 and day 2 was 6.6 and 6.8 g/mL for H

141 The distributions of <SUVmax>pt overlapped between the 2 groups, and interpati

142 ured as SUVmax Average intrapatient SUVmax (<SUVmax>pt) was compared between HER2+ and HER2- patients

143 Patients with a greater decrease in lung SUVmax (not reached vs. 7.1 mo; P = 0.016) and a greater

144 ), and of the largest metastatic lesion (M); SUVmax; SUVmean; size-incorporated SUVmax; metabolic tum

145 nalyzed, with quantitative parameters (MATV, SUVmax, SUVmean, heterogeneity) being extracted from the

146 antitative features for both standard (MATV, SUVmax, SUVmean) and heterogeneity quantification.

147 Mean SUVmax on PET1, PET2, and PET3 did not statistically dif

148 Mean SUVmax was 13.5 (95% confidence interval [CI], 10.9-16.1

149 In this investigation a mean SUVmax of 1.88 +/- 0.44 in healthy prostate tissue compa

150 liver, bone marrow, and spleen, with a mean SUVmax of 3.1, 3.7, and 5.6, respectively.

151 nt tumors were detectable, exhibiting a mean SUVmax of 4.7 (range, 2.1-10.9) and a mean T/B ratio of

152 (mean size, 2.3 cm; range, 0.7-4.6 cm; mean SUVmax, 22.7; range, 9.5-77.1) were ablated using radiof

153 ed metastases were visually detectable (mean SUVmax, 4.5 [range, 3.2-13.8]; mean T/B ratio, 2.8).

154 There was a significant difference in mean SUVmax +/- SD of malignant (6.2 +/- 3.2, 6.0 +/- 3.2, 5.

155 olution (Fit); and Black (Bl), based on mean SUVmax The TMTV values obtained with each adaptive metho

156 The pretreatment mean SUVmax and SUVmean were both significantly higher in the

157 BED-PSMA-11 (in the parotid glands, the mean SUVmax for (68)Ga-THP-PSMA was 3.6 [compared with 19.2 f

158 For each patient, the mean SUVmax for all sites was generated.

159 0.64) was significantly lower than the mean SUVmax for an IRS of 2 or more (n = 36; 12.38 +/- 15.02;

160 The mean SUVmax of PCA and PN for an IRS of less than 2 (n = 26;

161 The mean SUVmax was 4.4 +/- 3.9 for PC metastases and 5.6 +/- 1.6

162 The mean SUVmax was significantly lower in PCA samples with fewer

163 d corresponded to foci FDG uptake, with mean SUVmax of 9.8, 6.7, and 16.2, respectively.

164 than that of BRAF-WT lesions (n = 39; median SUVmax, 4.7; P = 0.019).

165 luable lesions of 10 patients, with a median SUVmax of 5.4 (1.1-49.4, P < 0.0001).

166 nge, 3.6-9.9) than (18)F-FDG avidity (median SUVmax, 10; range, 3.3-43.5).

167 10.9) greater than (18)F-FDG avidity (median SUVmax, 3.7; range, 1.8-6.0).

168 onstrated (18)F-fluciclovine avidity (median SUVmax, 6.1; range, 4.5-10.9) greater than (18)F-FDG avi

169 d a lower (18)F-fluciclovine avidity (median SUVmax, 6.8; range, 3.6-9.9) than (18)F-FDG avidity (med

170 take of BRAF(V600E)-positive lesions (median SUVmax, 6.3; n = 53) was significantly higher than that

171 The median SUVmax of 94 tumor lesions was 7.3 (range, 1.6-59.5).

172 The median SUVmax of the nine preoperatively identified adenomas wa

173 The median SUVmax of true-positive prostate segments was significan

174 mismatch, with high (18)F-FDG uptake (median SUVmax, 10.8; range, 1.1-79.0) contrasting with low (18)

175 ficantly higher tracer uptake values (median SUVmax, 14.2 vs. 7.6; P = 0.011) than patients with extr

176 After 2 wk, median SUVmax was 6.3 (1.7-62.3), corresponding to a mean decre

177 models were superior to the standard method (SUVmax).

178 models were superior to the standard method (SUVmax).

179 Nodal SUVmax correlated with symptom severity (P = .005), C-re

180 me (including metabolic tumor volume), nodal SUVmax, and our new concepts of mN stage and mNR.

181 egorized on the basis of measured normalized SUVmax values.

182 ll P < 0.01) but not between lean and obese (SUVmax, 7.9 [range, 4.2-17.3] vs. 4.0 [range, 0.0-13.5]

183 method uses an absolute threshold of 42% of SUVmax Recently, we implemented a background-adaptive me

184 sidered positive or negative on the basis of SUVmax in the LN compared with that in the blood pool; h

185 In the case of SUVmax, the repeatability coefficients for SUV, SUVAUC,

186 iquantitative analysis with determination of SUVmax in the same localizations was performed for (18)F

187 , and 95.2% and 80% for a retention index of SUVmax cutoff of greater than 0.

188 max and the corresponding retention index of SUVmax, measured on both scans.

189 R were significantly lower than the MEr-R of SUVmax (the hottest voxel): 9.35%-13.21% and 8.84%-12.49

190 antitative PET using percentage reduction of SUVmax (%DeltaSUVmax).

191 The repeatability of SUVmax, SUVmean, and SUVtotal for (18)F-NaF PET/CT was s

192 sts that a threshold value of 25% (SUV25) of SUVmax was highly reproducible (<9% variability).

193 tability of SUVAUC was comparable to that of SUVmax, SUVpeak, and SUVmean.

194 e was significantly 9.66% lower than that of SUVmax-40 (P < 0.0001).

195 The optimal cutoff values of SUVmax and TNR were 4.8 and 2.0, respectively.

196 gnificantly different between young and old (SUVmax, 7.9 [range, 4.2-17.3] vs. 2.9 [range, 0.0-4.0];

197 n rebiopsy of lesions to exclude HT based on SUVmax alone before initiating therapy in patients with

198 -characteristic analysis revealed an optimal SUVmax cutoff of 6.5 for discrimination of histopatholog

199 The optimal SUVmax for predicting pCR and EFS was, however, specific

200 d normalized (18)F fluoro-2-deoxyglucose PET SUVmax, outcome, and EMT in NSCLC.

201 52% for qualitative PET, 69% and 72% for PET-SUVmax, and 73% and 63% for PET-%DeltaSUVmax.

202 ation (SUVmean_gradient), the maximum pixel (SUVmax), and a 1-mL sphere at the region of highest upta

203 microvascular invasion, being FDG-positive, SUVmax, and TNR were significant predictors for worse RF

204 There was a weak correlation with pretherapy SUVmax and Ki-67 (r = 0.29, P = 0.04), but the correlati

205 nd a patient with cancer of unknown primary (SUVmax, 13.8; T/B ratio, 8.1).

206 of primary tumour (SUVmax-T) and NT ratios (SUVmax-LN/SUVmax-T) were compared between the groups.

207 djuvant chemotherapy were analyzed regarding SUVmax, MTV, TLG, BSL, and BSV, as well as the relative

208 On linear regressions, SUVmax and SUVpeak significantly improved (by 35% and 23

209 onstrated a significantly higher mean +/- SD SUVmax (11.8 +/- 7.6) than histopathology-negative segme

210 ties improved at remission, with significant SUVmax decreases in the lymph nodes (P = .004), spleen (

211 ers including tumour size, axillary LN size, SUVmax of ipsilateral axillary LNs (SUVmax-LN), SUVmax o

212 6) and a greater decrease in the lung/spleen SUVmax index (not reached vs. 7.1; P = 0.043) were more

213 The change in SUVmax (SUVmax) after 2 cycles was more pronounced in patients w

214 s in image quality (4-point scale), SUVmean, SUVmax, and characterization (benign/malignant) between

215 metrics such as changes in SUVmean, SUVpeak, SUVmax, and lesion volume was assessed using the manufac

216 after induction chemotherapy-%SUVremaining = SUVmax(t2)/SUVmax(t0)-was assessed by proportional hazar

217 Tumor maximal SUV (T-SUVmax) and T-SUVmax-to-mediastinum blood-pool (MBP) SUVmean ratios (T

218 In C1, T-SUVmax and T/MBP ranged from 4.09 to 8.93 and 1.39 to 3.

219 creasing the delay to 42 h in C3 decreased T-SUVmax and T/MBP, showing that 30 h was the most favorab

220 ased to 40 (delay 30 h), resulting in high T-SUVmax but with higher MBP than in C2.

221 ay was increased to 30 h in C2, increasing T-SUVmax and T/MBP.

222 Tumor maximal SUV (T-SUVmax) and T-SUVmax-to-mediastinum blood-pool (MBP) SUV

223 tion chemotherapy-%SUVremaining = SUVmax(t2)/SUVmax(t0)-was assessed by proportional hazard analysis

224 akW MEr-R was not significantly greater than SUVmax-40 MEr-R (P = 0.086).

225 Logistic regression showed that SUVmax at 5 wk (P = 0.034) and 10 wk (P = 0.022) and per

226 This study showed that SUVmax on (68)Ga-PSMA PET/CT correlates significantly wi

227 The SUVmax (mean +/- SD ) of lesions at 1-2 h after injectio

228 The SUVmax and contrast of 149 tumor lesions were measured i

229 The SUVmax and SUVmean of healthy target organs, residual pr

230 The SUVmax measured during radiotherapy was significantly hi

231 The SUVmax of each PDX was calculated and compared with the

232 The SUVmax of the liver, spleen, and bone marrow was measure

233 The SUVmax of tumor lesions was determined using region-of-i

234 The SUVmax, SUVmean, metabolic tumor volume, and total lesio

235 The SUVmean of nonspecific tissues and the SUVmax of the tumor were evaluated for each detected les

236 soft-tissue lesions were identified, and the SUVmax was measured.

237 When available, the SUVmax of malignant lesions was compared with the corres

238 s also no significant difference between the SUVmax of all DTCs and PDTCs, regardless of BRAF mutatio

239 There was no correlation between the SUVmax of PCA and Gleason score (P = 0.54).

240 ficance could be observed when comparing the SUVmax of (18)F-DCFPyL and (18)F-PSMA-1007 for local tum

241 rve (AUCs) of 0.78 compared with 0.58 in the SUVmax model.

242 erating-characteristic curve analyses of the SUVmax of PCA, validated by immunohistochemical staining

243 oimmune pericarditis); especially all of the SUVmax scores >= 10 had tuberculosis.

244 biopsy in a noninvasive manner using on the SUVmax or uptake patterns.

245 l), and 605 were PET-negative (less than the SUVmax of the blood pool).

246 ,022 LNs, 331 were PET-positive (3 times the SUVmax of the blood pool), 86 were PET-indeterminate (1-

247 l), 86 were PET-indeterminate (1-3 times the SUVmax of the blood pool), and 605 were PET-negative (le

248 tology grade of fibrosis correlated with the SUVmax in the axial skeleton (spine and iliac crests) an

249 dimensions based on CT and compared with the SUVmax Nodes demonstrating uptake of (68)Ga-PSMA with an

250 ach PDX was calculated and compared with the SUVmax of the corresponding parental tumor.

251 otal lesion glycolysis (TLG) are superior to SUVmax for measuring tumor burden.

252 0.77; 95%CI, 0.69-0.84; Delta = 0.45), tumor SUVmax (ICC, 0.99; 95%CI, 0.97-0.99; Delta = 0.44), and

253 Twelve patients had a tumor SUVmax of 10 or greater and a 3-y EFS of 49% (vs. 92% in

254 Between patients, median tumor SUVmax varied up to 8-fold.

255 y LNs (SUVmax-LN), SUVmax of primary tumour (SUVmax-T) and NT ratios (SUVmax-LN/SUVmax-T) were compar

256 measured by maximum standard glucose uptake (SUVmax) and total lesion glycolysis (TLG), nutritional r

257 When a threshold of 5.2 or greater was used, SUVmax was found to yield 100% sensitivity and 92% speci

258 Using SUVmax of 4.04 at week 5, SUVmax of 3.15 at week 10, and

259 Region-of-interest analysis using SUVmax was performed, and (18)F-FDG uptake in lesions wa

260 Tumor tracer uptake was quantified using SUVmax The endpoints were a change in tumor tracer uptak

261 erpreter 1 assessed BPU quantitatively using SUVmax Interpreters 1 and 2 assessed amount of FGT and B

262 ding maximum/mean standardized uptake value (SUVmax and SUVmean, respectively) and metabolic tumor vo

263 maximum and mean standardized uptake value (SUVmax and SUVmean, respectively) for tumor, metabolic t

264 A maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) >= 5 typically indicates tuberculosis or neoplas

265 including maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) and total functional burden (SUVtotal), were ext

266 done with maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) and tumor to nontumor ratio (TNR).

267 ormalized maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) are associated with a more epithelial-mesenchyma

268 p between maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) at baseline on positron emission tomography (PET

269 erence in maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) between abnormal parathyroid uptake and physiolo

270 The maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) in malignant lesions was significantly higher th

271 ed as the maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) in the tumor relative to that in healthy white m

272 tified by maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) of the hottest malignant lesion in 6 prespecifie

273 The maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) of the mass lesion was 8.94 on FDG PET/CT images

274 Maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) was associated with pulmonary function and survi

275 PET using maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax), and 7 quantitative PET using percentage reducti

276 ed by the maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax), metabolic tumor volume (MTV), and total lesion

277 Maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax), peak standardized uptake value (SUVpeak), and n

278 ADC), PET maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax), SI on T2-weighted images x SUVmax, and ADC x SU

279 tified as maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax).

280 ntage of maximum standardized uptake value (%SUVmax) remaining in the primary tumor after induction c

281 methods (maximum standardized uptake value [SUVmax], +7% +/- 13 for BG vs +8% +/- 16 for DDG, P = .7

282 y (median maximal standardized uptake value [SUVmax], 6.0; range, 2.0-8.0) and splenomegaly (3.4; 1.2

283 rameters (maximum standardized uptake value [SUVmax], total metabolic tumor volume [TMTV]).

284 18)F-FDG maximal standardized uptake values (SUVmax) averaged for slices encompassing the AAA volume.

285 ively by maximum standardized uptake values (SUVmax) for both tracers.

286 a surrogate marker of tumor burden, whereas SUVmax (P = 0.22) or SUVmean (P = 0.45) did not.

287 urpose of this study was to evaluate whether SUVmax in the PET examination might correlate with semia

288 omatic volumes of interest and compared with SUVmax in the residual mass with the highest (18)F-FDG u

289 ty at F-FDG PET/CT inversely correlated with SUVmax (R = -0.40, P = 0.03).

290 histopathology (STBHP) were correlated with SUVmax and STB as determined by different SUV cutoffs fo

291 ive Ki-67 had weak positive correlation with SUVmax (R1 = 0.48 [P = 0.03], R2 = 0.44 [P = 0.03], R3 =

292 ation for quantitative BPU measurements with SUVmax was 5.6%, indicating a high reproducibility.

293 current most accurate prediction model with SUVmax as a predictor variable was compared with 6 diffe

294 Uptake was quantified with SUVmax, SUVmean, and SUVtotal Test-retest repeatability

295 .97 x edema) + (0.83 x ulceration) + (0.55 x SUVmax ratio) + 1.14.

296 combined PET/MR enterography biomarker ADC x SUVmax cutoff of less than 3000, which was associated wi

297 SI on T2-weighted images x SUVmax, and ADC x SUVmax values at levels that corresponded to pathologic

298 SI on T2-weighted images x SUVmax, and ADC x SUVmax, showed significant differences in the fibrosis g

299 e value (SUVmax), SI on T2-weighted images x SUVmax, and ADC x SUVmax values at levels that correspon

300 omarkers, SUVmax, SI on T2-weighted images x SUVmax, and ADC x SUVmax, showed significant differences