ライフサイエンスコーパス: standardized uptake value

1 standardized uptake values ( SUVmax maximum standardized uptake value ).

2 and total lesion activity (TLA = MATV x mean standardized uptake value).

3 milar to quantitative PET (i.e., kBq cm(-3), standardized uptake value).

4 ntified within upper airway tissues with the standardized uptake value.

5 e thoracic aortic wall and was reported as a standardized uptake value.

6 loped with a threshold of 40% of the maximum standardized uptake value.

7 ication of intratumor heterogeneity and peak standardized uptake value.

8 mm or greater on CT and expressed as maximum standardized uptake value.

9 ke of the abdominal aorta was measured using standardized uptake values.

10 tive analysis was performed by comparing the standardized uptake values.

11 n saline controls 24 h after treatment (mean standardized uptake value, 0.44 +/- 0.08 vs. 0.56 +/- 0.

12 ly variable between all metastases (range of standardized uptake value, 1.20-18.81), and 45% of the p

13 t LN activity (mean [SD] maximum axillary LN standardized uptake value, 1.53 [0.56]), the elite contr

14 The average maximum standardized uptake value (10-12 min) of tumors was sign

15 rms of contrast (-11.3%, P = 0.002), maximum standardized uptake value (-10.7%, P = 0.003), and slope

16 levels of LN (mean [SD] maximum axillary LN standardized uptake value, 2.12 [0.87] and 2.32 [1.79],

17 ertrophy than primary tumors (median maximum standardized uptake value, 2.2 vs. 3.5; P = 0.004).

18 acer uptake in TE-11 than TT tumors (maximum standardized uptake value, 24 h: 0.67 +/- 0.09 vs. 0.36

19 owed higher-than-normal physiologic avidity (standardized uptake value, 4.3) in the proximal stomach

20 as defined as the sum of the volumes above a standardized uptake value 50% of the SUVmax within the p

21 hest activity (mean [SD] maximum axillary LN standardized uptake value, 8.82 [3.08]).

22 e within the infrarenal aorta to assess mean standardized uptake value and attenuation (in Hounsfield

23 an automated contouring program based on the standardized uptake value and developed with a threshold

24 Variations in tumor standardized uptake value and normal tissue distribution

25 test), which compared favorably with maximum standardized uptake value and tumor volume (hazard ratio

26 , which was higher than those of the maximum standardized uptake value and tumor volume, with concord

27 The maximum standardized uptake value and tumor-to-liver uptake rati

28 In the entire group, tumor maximum standardized uptake value and tumor-to-muscle ratio corr

29 ed semiquantitatively by determining maximum standardized uptake value and tumor-to-normal breast (T/

30 were analyzed on the basis of the (18)F-FDG standardized uptake value and volumetric CT histogram an

31 High standardized uptake values and slow washout kinetics wer

32 s measured using normalized 60- to 90-minute standardized uptake values and volume of distribution ra

33 , deriving tumor glucose metabolism (maximum standardized uptake value) and regional blood flow.

34 tissue ratios based on both maximum and mean standardized uptake values) and visually (4-point scale)

35 Tumor size, PET standardized uptake value, and IMI tumor-to-background r

36 ptake, generally in tumors with high initial standardized uptake values, and showed a minor tumor gro

37 rs (tumor volume, diameter, maximum and mean standardized uptake values, and total lesion glycolysis

38 onresponders using a 42% decrease in maximum standardized uptake value as a cutoff.

39 titative parameters maximal, mean, and total standardized uptake value as ratio to background and bio

40 Maximum standardized uptake value at cycle 1 day 8 correlated wi

41 l brain, with significant differences in the standardized uptake values at late times among (18)F-FDG

42 These changes were analyzed with a standardized uptake value calculation at 20 and 40 min a

43 h may not include the voxel with highest SUV standardized uptake value corrected for local background

44 static parameters (maximal and mean tumoral standardized uptake value corrected for mean background

45 h we also examined whether change in maximum standardized uptake values corrected for lean body mass

46 Mean maximum standardized uptake value correlated linearly with MILAS

47 Of note, lung mean standardized uptake values correlated with bleomycin dos

48 eg, the change of the difference of maximum standardized uptake value (DeltaSUVmax), is for patients

49 SULmax (maximum standardized uptake value derived for lean body) and SUL

50 r regions of interest in maximum and mean ED standardized uptake value (ED SUVmax and ED SUVmean, res

51 RAC and MLAA-GMM methods resulted in average standardized uptake value errors of -5.4% and -3.5% in t

52 Mean maximum standardized uptake values for the hottest voxel in the

53 ence correlated with higher lesional maximum standardized uptake values: for PFS, P < .0001 to P = .0

54 A correlation between maximum standardized uptake value from PET and counting rate per

55 to contralateral [11C]PBR28 and [11C]DPA-713 standardized uptake values from temporal regions.

56 greater than 25% in tumor (18)F-FLT uptake (standardized uptake values) from baseline using receiver

57 e and ERalpha-negative lesions was a maximum standardized uptake value greater than 1.8, which provid

58 s including all focal lesions with a maximum standardized uptake value > 2.5.

59 these contours to give the tumor volume with standardized uptake value >/=2.5.

60 FDHT uptake (lesion with the highest maximum standardized uptake value) had significantly shorter ove

61 The visual assessment of static standardized uptake value images showed (18)F-FMZ PET to

62 However, the (18)F-FMZ standardized uptake value images were falsely localizing

63 The mean standardized uptake value in grafts (SUV-G) and mediasti

64 to metastatic sites (12- and 8.5-fold-lower standardized uptake value in the heart and kidney, respe

65 distribution studies as well as higher tumor standardized uptake values in PET/CT imaging than (68)Ga

66 We compared standardized uptake values in the clinically adjudicated

67 to image and stage several tumor types, the standardized uptake value is generally lower than that o

68 High standardized uptake value, large metabolic volumes, and

69 The mean increase in maximum standardized uptake value, lesion-to-background ratio (c

70 esion): mG1, tumor-to-liver ratio of maximum standardized uptake value </= 1.0; mG2, 1.0-2.3; mG3, >2

71 ugmented in atherosclerotic animals, with an standardized uptake value mean of 0.43+/-0.02 at inducti

72 nidazole uptake increased with time on diet (standardized uptake value mean, 0.10+/-0.01 in nonathero

73 These results were confirmed with a standardized uptake value measured at 20 and 40 min.

74 ure features reflecting image heterogeneity, standardized uptake values, metabolic tumor volume, and

75 8)F-FDG PET/CT and the difference in maximum standardized uptake value (n = 11; R(2) = 0.67; P = 0.00

76 Standardized uptake values normalized to whole brain wer

77 se uptake (inflammatory signal), measured as standardized uptake value (odds ratio [95% confidence in

78 ve correlation was found between the maximal standardized uptake value of (18)F-FDG and semiquantitat

79 ally significant correlation between maximal standardized uptake value of (18)F-FDG and semiquantitat

80 luorodeoxyglucose uptake with SUVmax maximum standardized uptake value of 2.2-14.6 (mean, 6.6 +/- 4.2

81 fluorodeoxyglucose-avid IMLN, with a median standardized uptake value of 2.30 (range, 1.20-6.10).

82 EG3-E[c{RGDyk}]2) uptake with SUVmax maximum standardized uptake value of 2.4-9.4 (mean, 5.6 +/- 2.8)

83 G3-E[c{RGDyk}]2) uptake, with SUVmax maximum standardized uptake value of 2.4-9.7 (mean, 5.0 +/- 2.3)

84 luorodeoxyglucose uptake with SUVmax maximum standardized uptake value of 2.8-18.6 (mean, 10.4 +/- 7.

85 e ratio (mcSUVr) is calculated from the mean standardized uptake value of 6 cortical regions normaliz

86 CI, 92.4% to 96.8%) with an average maximum standardized uptake value of 65.4 +/- 47 (range, 6.9 to

87 The maximum standardized uptake value of brown fat had a significant

88 these mouse models, and a ratio between the standardized uptake value of the primary tumor and a con

89 tatistically significant mean errors in mean standardized uptake values of -14% +/- 5% and -23% +/- 6

90 h (64)Cu-L19K-DNP and (64)Cu-L19K, with mean standardized uptake values of 0.62 +/- 0.05, 0.18 +/- 0.

91 es to assess scanner calibration and maximum standardized uptake values of all 6 lesions to review qu

92 ents were more likely to have higher maximum standardized uptake values of brown fat.

93 ng open-source AMIDE software to compare the standardized uptake values of tumor with those of surrou

94 hold of mean standardized uptake value ( SUV standardized uptake value ) of a sphere of 12-mm diamete

95 22 patients, with a median SUV(max) (maximum standardized uptake value) of 6.9 (range, 2.3-46.9).

96 Data were expressed in units of standardized uptake value or percentage injected dose pe

97 xpression (n = 15 nonhepatic tumors; maximum standardized uptake value, P = 0.0002; tumor-to-liver up

98 umors of variable sizes (8.5-128 mm(3)) with standardized uptake values ranging from 2.1 to 9.3.

99 Subsequently, a single mean cortical standardized uptake value ratio (mcSUVr) is calculated f

100 Cognitive scores, mean fludeoxyglucose F 18 standardized uptake value ratio (participants from the A

101 Regional FDG standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR) and gray matter v

102 oid burden was measured as the mean cortical standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR) at baseline.

103 ce of beta-amyloidosis, defined as a PiB PET standardized uptake value ratio (SUVr) greater than 1.5,

104 inear regression of voxel intensities on the standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR) in a neocortical

105 Standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR) of [18F]-AV-1451

106 The standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR) positivity thresh

107 density data as a truth standard to derive a standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR) threshold, we ass

108 Standardized uptake value ratio (SUVr) was calculated fr

109 f metabolic activity in the residual lesion (standardized uptake value ratio [SUVr]) was calculated a

110 pendent on the reference region used for the standardized uptake value ratio calculation and which wa

111 ing target ROIs were evaluated by use of the standardized uptake value ratio for (18)F-florbetapir PE

112 Standardized uptake value ratio images were calculated f

113 Standardized uptake value ratio images were visually sco

114 Amyloid binding was quantified using the standardized uptake value ratio in one cortical composit

115 d the [11C]PiB distribution volume ratio and standardized uptake value ratio in PET images.

116 At 150 min after injection, the cortical standardized uptake value ratio increased by approximate

117 tissue model, Logan graphical analysis, and standardized uptake value ratio methods, respectively.

118 Elevated amyloid level was defined as a standardized uptake value ratio of greater than 1.5 on P

119 Pittsburgh compound B standardized uptake value ratio results were scaled usin

120 The distribution volume ratio and the standardized uptake value ratio were measured in cortica

121 SUVr (standardized uptake value ratio) was calculated for a st

122 y reference, 18F-T807 data were expressed as standardized uptake value ratio, and 11C-PiB were given

123 -ABC577 binding was quantified by use of the standardized uptake value ratio, which was calculated fo

124 asures of cortical target area to cerebellum standardized uptake value ratios (SUVr) as primary outco

125 Target-to-reference tissue standardized uptake value ratios (SUVRs) at 70-90 min we

126 t placement was identical on both scans, and standardized uptake value ratios (SUVRs) using the cereb

127 Standardized uptake value ratios (SUVRs) were calculated

128 r mouse brain, binding potentials (BPND) and standardized uptake value ratios (SUVRs) were calculated

129 Standardized uptake value ratios (SUVRs) were extracted

130 on between longitudinal Abeta1-42 levels and standardized uptake value ratios during follow-up.

131 ifically, we derived grey matter density and standardized uptake value ratios for both positron emiss

132 Standardized uptake value ratios for muscles (infected/i

133 ative scans; and third, to correlate derived standardized uptake value ratios to neuropathologic meas

134 (18) F-flortaucipir standardized uptake value ratios were calculated (t = 80

135 egions, were replicated using comparisons of standardized uptake value ratios, and could not be accou

136 The FTP-PET measures were computed as standardized uptake value ratios.

137 reference tissue modeling 2 (SRTM2) DVR, and standardized uptake value ratios.

138 e was assessed semiquantitatively by maximum standardized uptake value, ratios of tumor to normal tis

139 ods revealed a significant difference in PET standardized uptake value relative to CT-based attenuati

140 s, potentially leading to highly reduced PET standardized uptake values, rendering lesions indistingu

141 (18)F-FDG PET tumor uptake (maximum standardized uptake value, scan 2 - scan 1) correlated w

142 (11)C-donepezil volumes of distribution and standardized uptake values, suggesting that arterial blo

143 or volume derived with 50% threshold of mean standardized uptake value ( SUV standardized uptake valu

144 cizumab uptake was quantified as the maximum standardized uptake value (SUV max).

145 otal lesion glycolysis, and maximum and peak standardized uptake value (SUV(max) and SUV(peak), respe

146 PET parameters included maximum standardized uptake value (SUV(max)) of the most active

147 late percentage changes in maximum (18)F-FDG standardized uptake value (SUV(max)) relative to baselin

148 sease was quantified on the basis of maximum standardized uptake value (SUV(max)), MATV, and total le

149 cale and by measuring the myocardial maximum standardized uptake value (SUV(max)).

150 The mean and maximum standardized uptake value (SUV(mean) and SUV(max), respe

151 Maximum, mean, and peak standardized uptake value (SUV) analysis was performed,

152 g potential (BPND) images were compared with standardized uptake value (SUV) and SUV ratio images.

153 acturer's PSF-based reconstruction using the standardized uptake value (SUV) and the metabolic volume

154 For each lesion, the maximum standardized uptake value (SUV) and the total lesion gly

155 However, it is not known whether standardized uptake value (SUV) can detect differences i

156 as well as to investigate the sufficiency of standardized uptake value (SUV) for estimation of SSTR e

157 s with visual inspection, line profiles, and standardized uptake value (SUV) in focally avid lesions.

158 However, additional miscalculation of standardized uptake value (SUV) in PET images can be cau

159 we determined the repeatability of different standardized uptake value (SUV) measurements using the a

160 Visual and semiquantitative standardized uptake value (SUV) measurements were perfor

161 Standardized uptake value (SUV) measures were also evalu

162 Standardized uptake value (SUV) normalized by lean body

163 e in the brain occurred quickly, with a peak standardized uptake value (SUV) of 1.7.

164 A standardized uptake value (SUV) of 2.5 was taken as a cu

165 (18)F-FES PET standardized uptake value (SUV) of the breast lesion was

166 s, including visual PET scale (+/-), maximal standardized uptake value (SUV) of the tumor (T SUV max)

167 The CT volume and standardized uptake value (SUV) parameters of the primar

168 Change in hotspot standardized uptake value (SUV) predicted loss of graft

169 r bone lesions and to analyze differences in standardized uptake value (SUV) quantification between P

170 reference regions to track 24-mo florbetapir standardized uptake value (SUV) ratio (SUVR) changes; to

171 Evaluation of imaging was done with standardized uptake value (SUV) ratios: SUV maximum of t

172 argets against blood-pool or liver activity; standardized uptake value (SUV) semiquantitation has art

173 studies typically measure the change in the standardized uptake value (SUV) to quantify response.

174 Standardized uptake value (SUV) was calculated for PET/C

175 The blood standardized uptake value (SUV) was determined by manual

176 The software provided the highest standardized uptake value (SUV) within the lesion and at

177 ages randomly concerning quality, detection, standardized uptake value (SUV), and size of pulmonary n

178 Standardized uptake value (SUV), maximum SUV, metabolic

179 mance of several simplified methods, such as standardized uptake value (SUV), was assessed.

180 on, based on fixed or adaptive thresholds of standardized uptake value (SUV).

181 ed semiquantitatively in the form of maximum standardized uptake values (SUV(max)) and uptake volumes

182 FDG activity was quantified as standardized uptake values (SUV) and both the overall me

183 Time-activity curves were obtained, and standardized uptake values (SUV) were calculated for maj

184 red visually and semiquantitatively (maximum standardized uptake value [SUV(max)], mean SUV [SUV(mean

185 sence or absence of (18)F-FDG tracer uptake (standardized uptake value [SUV] > 2) in cervical-supracl

186 Simplified measures (standardized uptake value [SUV] and tumor-to-blood ratio

187 aclavicular lymphadenopathy (6 x 5 cm with a standardized uptake value [SUV] of 14), a 1.3-cm subcuta

188 ) and several simplified methods (Patlak and standardized uptake value [SUV]).

189 PET indices (maximum and mean standardized uptake value [SUV], metabolically active tu

190 ptake was observed with (64)Cu-ATSM (maximum standardized uptake values [SUV(max)], 1.26 +/- 0.13) an

191 Intratumoral pre- and posttreatment FDG-standardized uptake values (SUV1, SUV2, percentage chang

192 ed with these 2 needles and to calculate the standardized uptake value, SUVARG.

193 t test was performed to compare the maximum standardized uptake values ( SUVmax maximum standardized

194 tic spread, and determining maximum and mean standardized uptake value (SUVmax and SUVmean, respectiv

195 T-derived parameters, including maximum/mean standardized uptake value (SUVmax and SUVmean, respectiv

196 Global imaging metrics, including maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) and total functional

197 ke in FDG-positive HCC was done with maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) and tumor to nontumor

198 tumors that express high normalized maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) are associated with a

199 The median and range of maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) at baseline on (18)F-

200 to calculate the mean difference in maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) between abnormal para

201 18)F-FDG PET-positive lesions with a maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) greater than 4.5 or a

202 The maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) in malignant lesions

203 Maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) in pulmonary nodules

204 ratio [SUVr]) was calculated as the maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) in the tumor relative

205 In addition to maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) measurements, a globa

206 t each individual sampling site, the maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) of (68)Ga-DOTATATE wa

207 parameters were generated, including maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) of the hottest lesion

208 ke of tumor tissue was quantified by maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) of the hottest malign

209 The maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) of the mass lesion wa

210 ut a semiquantitative approach using maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) reduction between bas

211 Maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) reductions from basel

212 tile range, IQR, 2.0-3.6) and median maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) was 7.2 (IQR 3.7-15.5

213 Maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) was 8.68 +/- 4.75 (ra

214 The maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) was used to depict (1

215 We measured the highest maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax), defined as the lymph

216 CT largest diameter, CT volume, maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax), mean SUV (SUVmean),

217 The PET parameters maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax), metabolic tumor volu

218 Metabolic activity defined by the maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax), metabolic tumor volu

219 HAC and RS patients had higher maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax), more frequent consti

220 Maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax), peak standardized up

221 ent diffusion coefficient (ADC), PET maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax), SI on T2-weighted im

222 lesions was measured as maximum single-voxel standardized uptake value (SUVmax).

223 cizumab uptake was quantified by the maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax).

224 PET parameters included MTV and maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax).

225 mumab tumor uptake was quantified as maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax).

226 ssed the impact of 2 PET parameters, maximum standardized uptake values (SUVmax) and total lesion gly

227 vestigated; these included (18)F-FDG maximal standardized uptake values (SUVmax) averaged for slices

228 evel, visually and quantitatively by maximum standardized uptake values (SUVmax) for both tracers.

229 CE MR imaging data and compared with maximum standardized uptake values (SUVmax) from FDG PET/CT data

230 ified and compared by calculation of maximum standardized uptake values (SUVmax) using volume compute

231 The size and maximum standardized uptake values (SUVmax) were measured for al

232 he prognostic value of percentage of maximum standardized uptake value (%SUVmax) remaining in the pri

233 ntified by the SUVmaxavg (average of maximum standardized uptake value [SUVmax] for up to 5 tumors wi

234 associated lymphoid tissue lymphoma (maximal standardized uptake value [SUVmax] range, 3.1-6.7) and 1

235 appropriate threshold (percentage of maximum standardized uptake value [SUVmax]) to delineate subvolu

236 h tumor: (18)F-FDG uptake ((18)F-FDG maximum standardized uptake value [SUVmax]), CT texture (express

237 significantly between both methods (maximum standardized uptake value [SUVmax], +7% +/- 13 for BG vs

238 ic symmetric lymphadenopathy (median maximal standardized uptake value [SUVmax], 6.0; range, 2.0-8.0)

239 sion tomography (PET)/CT parameters (maximum standardized uptake value [SUVmax], total metabolic tumo

240 Indeed, the calculation of mean standardized uptake value (SUVmean) and maximal SUV (SUV

241 s and to compare (18)F FSPG mean and maximum standardized uptake values (SUVmean and SUVmax, respecti

242 of interest on fat and water images and mean standardized uptake values (SUVmean) were determined bil

243 mum standardized uptake value (SUVmax), peak standardized uptake value (SUVpeak), and number and size

244 lso derived from the PET data: primary tumor standardized uptake values (SUVs) (mean SUV, maximum SUV

245 Standardized uptake values (SUVs) and SUV gradients as a

246 scle area to obtain time-activity curves and standardized uptake values (SUVs) between 60 and 90 min.

247 dose while maintaining validity in comparing standardized uptake values (SUVs) between studies.

248 Standardized uptake values (SUVs) from the 2 devices wer

249 T/CT studies were analyzed; mean and maximum standardized uptake values (SUVs) in manually drawn regi

250 The mean standardized uptake values (SUVs) in the bladder, kidney

251 ive was to determine whether early change in standardized uptake values (SUVs) of 3'deoxy-3'-(18)F-fl

252 Standardized uptake values (SUVs) of gross sarcoma and c

253 ages, which could together make the measured standardized uptake values (SUVs) vary by a factor great

254 Standardized uptake values (SUVs) were calculated for 24

255 For each scan, the maximum and mean standardized uptake values (SUVs) were calculated in 5 a

256 (18)F FACBC PET standardized uptake values (SUVs) were compared with tho

257 Whole-brain standardized uptake values (SUVs) were determined, and a

258 PET standardized uptake values (SUVs) were quantified with v

259 The mean standardized uptake values (SUVs) were recorded for 18 o

260 By using the cumulative distribution of standardized uptake values (SUVs) within the lungs, thos

261 they relate to conventional indices such as standardized uptake values (SUVs), metabolic volume (MV)

262 18)F-FDG uptake and changes were measured as standardized uptake values (SUVs).

263 FDG uptake was quantified as mean standardized uptake values (SUVs, g/ml).

264 mut/mut animals showed significantly higher standardized uptake value than MENX wild-type controls (

265 TMTV was computed by using the 41% maximum standardized uptake value thresholding method, and the o

266 tom fill and imaging and measured background standardized uptake values to assess scanner calibration

267 ent and masked interpreters measured maximum standardized uptake values to quantify metabolic activit

268 EORTC criteria, PERCIST, Deauville criteria, standardized uptake value, total lesion glycolysis, and

269 Maximum standardized uptake values, tumor-to-normal contralatera

270 mapping (RPM2), reference Logan values, and standardized uptake value volume ratios (SUVr), the latt

271 The C statistic for the model including the standardized uptake value was 0.62 (95% CI, 0.56-0.68) a

272 e mean tumor-to-background ratio for maximum standardized uptake value was 20.4 +/- 17.3 (range, 2.3-

273 ase +/- standard deviation in lesion maximum standardized uptake value was 42.2% +/- 38.9 between non

274 rafenib, and the median reduction in maximum standardized uptake value was 63.5% (range, 41.3% to 86.

275 The standardized uptake value was associated with survival (

276 Baseline median (interquartile range) standardized uptake value was higher in segments with ve

277 The maximum standardized uptake value was measured in corresponding

278 Standardized uptake value was normalized for blood (18)F

279 When the maximum standardized uptake value was set at 3.6, the sensitivit

280 The maximum standardized uptake value was significantly higher in ma

281 The median of maximum standardized uptake values was 8.5 (range, 1.3-35.8).

282 For bone lesions, underestimation of PET standardized uptake values was found for all methods, wi

283 On quantitative analysis, maximum standardized uptake values was greater in mechanical tha

284 Mean and maximum standardized uptake value were also included.

285 No differences in standardized uptake value were found in the control musc

286 led increased (18)F-FDG uptake (mean +/- SEM standardized uptake values were 0.71 +/- 0.03 before and

287 and decreased (18)F-FLT uptake (mean +/- SEM standardized uptake values were 1.18 +/- 0.05 before and

288 Tumor maximum standardized uptake values were assessed by volume-of-in

289 Lesional standardized uptake values were calculated, as well as l

290 Maximum standardized uptake values were calculated.

291 Standardized uptake values were compared with plasma VEG

292 Myocardial, lung, liver, and blood-pool standardized uptake values were determined at different

293 Standardized uptake values were determined using regions

294 From summed images, standardized uptake values were measured from the pancre

295 r calculation of target-to-nontarget ratios, standardized uptake values were normalized against healt

296 ssue, soft-tissue lesions, and bone lesions; standardized uptake values were quantitatively compared.

297 osclerotic lesions, spleen, and bone marrow (standardized uptake values wild-type versus apolipoprote

298 (47.5-57.5 min after injection), the average standardized uptake value with (18)F-FDG (1.9 +/- 0.1) w

299 dioactivity in the vasculature was low (~0.1 standardized uptake value), with slow washout.

300 was quantified by measurement of the maximum standardized uptake value within a lesion (SUVmax) and t