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 at 24 mo of follow-up was significantly higher (P

6 SUVmax for the largest metastatic lesion was the only va

7 SUVmax in the liver and aorta was determined using autom

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

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

10 SUVmax was a significant, yet modest, baseline predictor

11 SUVmax was also significantly associated with EFS both i

12 SUVmax was measured and correlated with biopsy findings

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

14 SUVmax was similar in progressive and nonprogressive les

15 SUVmax, BAT volume, and SQUVmax were significantly diffe

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

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

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

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

20 </= 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

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

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

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

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

25 agreement with the recurrent volume at a 40% SUVmax threshold (common volume/baseline volume, 0.60-0.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

34 We propose a 70% SUVmax threshold to delineate areas of high (18)F-FDG up

35 ineated on initial PET/CT scans with 70%-90% SUVmax thresholds were in good agreement with the recurr

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

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

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

39 0 (TLF10) and fluoride tumor volume above an SUVmax of 10 (FTV10).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

64 -131%, and 5%-148% for SUVmean, SUVpeak, and SUVmax, respectively.

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

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

67 Any SUVmax below the normal threshold was excluded from anal

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

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

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

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

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

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

74 ar for SUVmax of the target lesion, averaged SUVmax, and averaged SUVpeak of up to 6 lesions per pati

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

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

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

78 The best SUVmax cutoff ranged from 37.8 to 38.0.

79 0.29, P = 0.04), but the correlation between SUVmax and Ki-67 after completion of NAC was stronger (r

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

92 (68)Ga-DOTANOC SUVmax is a relevant prognostic factor in patients with

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

101 tic analysis revealed a threshold of 2.3 for SUVmax to discriminate between tumor and nontumoral tiss

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

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

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

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

106 Repeatability was similar for SUVmax of the target lesion, averaged SUVmax, and averag

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

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

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

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

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

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

113 , 62.4% of the lesions demonstrated a higher SUVmax and 65.1% a higher contrast than at 1 h after inj

114 4, respectively; P = 0.15), despite a higher SUVmax for (68)Ga-HBED-PSMA than for (68)Ga-THP-PSMA (30

115 relatively larger primary tumours and higher SUVmax values.

116 The proposed thresholds of highest SUVmax and SUVrange should be prospectively validated.

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

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

119 The cutoff value for the highest SUVmax of (18)F-FDG aiming at 100% sensitivity with a ma

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

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

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

123 A low change in SUVmax between (18)F-FDG PET/CT examination before start

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

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

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

127 displayed a trend toward greater changes in SUVmax at 9 mo (difference between 9 mo and baseline: +0

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

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

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

131 Additionally, substantial differences in SUVmax intraindividually were detected.

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

133 NAC resulted in a significant reduction in %SUVmax (mean Delta, 39%; 95% confidence interval, 31-46)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

141 For each lesion, SUVmax and SUVpeak were determined.

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

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

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

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

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

147 in maximal diameter at 9 mo exhibited lower SUVmax within the AAA at baseline than patients who did

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

167 0.64) was significantly lower than the mean SUVmax for an IRS of 2 or more (n = 36; 12.38 +/- 15.02;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

175 10.9) greater than (18)F-FDG avidity (median SUVmax, 3.7; range, 1.8-6.0).

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

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

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

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

180 The median SUVmax of the nine preoperatively identified adenomas wa

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

189 The mean normal SUVmax for all 543 sites was 5.32+/-0.99.

190 egorized on the basis of measured normalized SUVmax values.

191 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]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

235 The SUVmax measured during radiotherapy was significantly hi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

245 range, defined as the difference between the SUVmax of the lymph node with the highest and lowest upt

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

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

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

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

250 ,022 LNs, 331 were PET-positive (3 times the SUVmax of the blood pool), 86 were PET-indeterminate (1-

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

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

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

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

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

256 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

273 site, the maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) of (68)Ga-DOTATATE was correlated with MR imagin

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

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

276 e highest maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax), defined as the lymph node with the highest upta

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

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

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

280 tified as maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax).

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

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

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

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

285 ameters, maximum standardized uptake values (SUVmax) and total lesion glycolysis, on event-free survi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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