Impact of Scan Duration on PET/CT Maximum Standardized Uptake Value Measurement

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 269)


Although readily available and convenient to use on PET/CT, SUV measurements are influenced by biologic and technologic factors like injected activity and scan duration. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of varying scan duration on SUV using standard clinical activities of 18F-FDG. Patient PET/CT images were acquired in list-mode for 6 min in forty 18F-FDG oncology patients with known tumor. For each patient, data were sorted into 10 images of different durations (from 10 s to 6 min). SUVmax were measured for the lesions in the images. Tumor SUVmax were statistically analyzed taking the low-noise 6 min SUVmax as standard. For each of the nine scan duration from 10 s to 5 min, the normalized SUVmax were 1.080 ± 0.1611, 1.041 ± 0.1043, 1.005 ± 0.0732, 1.004 ± 0.0696, 1.005 ± 0.0456, 0.995 ± 0.0452, 0.996 ± 0.0299, 1.001 ± 0.0233, and 1.0002 ± 0.0144, respectively. One-sample t test revealed that the SUVmax biases for scan durations greater than 40 s were not statistically significant. It was concluded that scan duration as short as 40 s could be applied without compromising the quality of SUVmax measure.


PET/CT Standardized uptake value Maximum standardized uptake value Quantification Scan duration 


  1. 1.
    Thie JA (2004) Understanding the standardized uptake value, its methods, and implications for usage. J Nucl Med 45(9):1431–1434Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Adams MC, Turkington TG, Wilson JM et al (2010) A systematic review of the factors affecting accuracy of SUV measurements. Am J Roentgenol 195(2):310–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hu Z, Wang W, Gualtieri EE, et al (2007) An LOR-based systematic and fully-3D PET image reconstruction using a blob-basis function. In: IEEE nuclear science symposium conference record, 2007 (NSS’07), vol 6. pp. 4415–4418)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Borst GR, Belderbos JSA, Boellaard R et al (2005) Standardised FDG uptake: a prognostic factor for inoperable non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Cancer 41:1533–1541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, et al (2009) From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med 50(suppl):122S–150SSGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Soret M, Bacharach SL, Buvat I (2007) Partial-volume effect in PET tumor imaging. J Nucl Med 48(6):932–945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Delbeke D, Coleman RE, Guiberteau MJ et al (2006) Procedure guideline for tumor imaging with 18F-FDG PET/CT 1.0. J Nucl Med 47(5):885–895Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Barrington SF, Begent J, Lynch T et al (2008) Guidelines for the use of PET–CT in children. Nucl Med Commun 29(5):418–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Boellaard R, O’Doherty M, Weber W et al (2010) FDG PET and PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour PET imaging: version 1.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 37(1):181–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tatsumi M, Clark P, Nakamoto Y et al (2003) Impact of body habitus on quantitative and qualitative image quality in wholebody FDG-PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 30(1):40–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Halpern B, Dahlbom M, Quon A et al (2004) Impact of patient weight and emission scan duration on PET/CT image quality and lesion detectability. J Nucl Med 45(5):797–801Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Watson C, Casey M, Bendriem B et al (2005) Optimizing injected dose in clinical PET by accurately modeling the counting-rate response functions specific to individual patient scans. J Nucl Med 46(11):1825–1834Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Goethals I, D’Asseler Y, Dobbeleir A et al (2010) The effect of acquisition time on visual and semi-quantitative analysis of F-18 FDG-PET studies in patients with head and neck cancer. Nucl Med Commun 31(3):227–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lodge MA, Chaudhry MA, Wahl RL (2012) Noise considerations for PET quantification using maximum and peak standardized uptake value. J Nucl Med 53(7):1041–1047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brambilla M, Matheoud R, Secco C et al (2007) Impact of target-to-background ratio, target size, emission scan duration, and activity on physical figures of merit for a 3D LSO-based whole body PET/CT scanner. Med Phys 34(10):3854–3865CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Nuclear Medicine, West China HospitalSichuan UniversitySichuangChina

Personalised recommendations