Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • View or Listen to JNM Podcast
  • Visit JNM on Facebook
  • Join JNM on LinkedIn
  • Follow JNM on Twitter
  • Subscribe to our RSS feeds
Meeting ReportTechnologist Abstract

Impact on SUV measurements: A comparison of measured vs. stated weight

Martin Schmitt, Renee Burney, Scott Stringer, Janis Brule and Jennifer Frye
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2009, 50 (supplement 2) 2118;
Martin Schmitt
1Barnes~Jewish Hospital, Clinical PET, St. Louis, MO
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Renee Burney
1Barnes~Jewish Hospital, Clinical PET, St. Louis, MO
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Scott Stringer
1Barnes~Jewish Hospital, Clinical PET, St. Louis, MO
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Janis Brule
1Barnes~Jewish Hospital, Clinical PET, St. Louis, MO
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jennifer Frye
2Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Division of Nuclear Medicine, St. Louis, MO
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
Loading

Abstract

2118

Objectives At our institution we obtain the patient's weight from the doctor’s office when scheduling a PET exam. Upon arrival, the patient is questioned what their current weight is. The weight obtained from the patient is used to measure SUV values. We questioned this procedure wondering if weighing the patient would obtain a more accurate result and how this would affect SUV values.

Methods We asked 240 patients their weight then weighed them. The recorded measurements and the weight from the doctor’s office were placed in a spreadsheet. We calculated the percentage difference between the measured weight, the patient's stated weight, and the doctor’s office weight. We measured the SUV values with all three weights that were obtained.

Results Oncologic PET patients know their weight. 53% of the patients surveyed were +/- 1% of their actual weight. The doctor’s office does not know the patient's weight. 64% of the doctor’s offices could not even provide us with a patient weight. When provided they were wrong by up to 50%. SUV values are affected by wrong weight

Conclusions There are many factors that can affect the measured SUV value. Obtaining the actual patient weight is easy to do. The percent error in weight correlates directly to the error in measured SUV value. In our study the largest difference in stated weight vs. measured weight was 7%. This translates to a 7% error in SUV value. Given the fact it is easy to do, all patients should be weighed at the start of a PET examination to prevent unnecessary variability in SUV measurements.

  • © 2009 by Society of Nuclear Medicine
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 50, Issue supplement 2
May 2009
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Impact on SUV measurements: A comparison of measured vs. stated weight
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Nuclear Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Nuclear Medicine web site.
Citation Tools
Impact on SUV measurements: A comparison of measured vs. stated weight
Martin Schmitt, Renee Burney, Scott Stringer, Janis Brule, Jennifer Frye
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2009, 50 (supplement 2) 2118;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Impact on SUV measurements: A comparison of measured vs. stated weight
Martin Schmitt, Renee Burney, Scott Stringer, Janis Brule, Jennifer Frye
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2009, 50 (supplement 2) 2118;
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Info & Metrics

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

Technologist Abstract

  • A modified tungsten pig for the safe transportation and use of curie quantities of F-18 in a satellite PET radiochemistry facility
  • A processing method of generator-produced Ga-68 for radiopharmaceutical labeling
  • First experience for internal dosimetry calculation of red marrow in Thai-neuroendocrine tumor patients treated with 131I-MIBG
Show more Technologist Abstract

Technologist Posters

  • Monte Carlo simulation of the acquisition conditions for 177Lu molecular imaging of hepatic tumors
  • Age-related scan duration of brain positron emission tomography with18F-fluorodeoxyglucose imaging in children
  • To explore the diagnostic value of 99mTc-MIBI SPECT/CT dual phase imaging in different hyperphasic time and Corresponding time point fusion imaging in hyperparathyroidism.
Show more Technologist Posters

Similar Articles

SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire