Influence of Image Reconstruction and Attenuation Correction Methods on SUV
| Site | No. of lesions | Method | SUV | Mean ± SD | Minimum | Maximum |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tumor | 24 | FBP+MAC | max | 6.98 ± 3.01 | 2.7 | 14.9 |
| 24 | avg | 4.64 ± 2.10 | 1.7 | 9.5 | ||
| 24 | FBP+SAC | max | 8.62 ± 4.14 | 4.3 | 18.1 | |
| 24 | avg | 5.63 ± 2.63 | 2.9 | 11.9 | ||
| 24 | IR+MAC | max | 7.74 ± 3.56 | 2.8 | 17.2 | |
| 24 | avg | 4.74 ± 2.09 | 1.8 | 10.3 | ||
| 24 | IR+SAC | max | 9.62 ± 4.57 | 4.9 | 20.8 | |
| 24 | avg | 5.85 ± 2.85 | 2.8 | 13.0 | ||
| Liver | 15 | FBP+MAC | max | 2.15 ± 0.43 | 1.2 | 3.1 |
| 15 | avg | 1.56 ± 0.38 | 0.9 | 2.6 | ||
| 15 | FBP+SAC | max | 2.77 ± 0.62 | 1.5 | 3.9 | |
| 15 | avg | 1.92 ± 0.38 | 1.1 | 2.8 | ||
| 15 | IR+MAC | max | 2.28 ± 0.44 | 1.3 | 3.2 | |
| 15 | avg | 1.72 ± 0.32 | 1.1 | 2.4 | ||
| 15 | IR+SAC | max | 2.65 ± 0.54 | 1.4 | 3.6 | |
| 15 | avg | 2.03 ± 0.35 | 1.2 | 2.8 | ||
| Bladder | 15 | FBP+MAC | max | 26.9 ± 14.06 | 5.2 | 56.0 |
| 15 | avg | 19.05 ± 10.34 | 3.9 | 40.0 | ||
| 15 | FBP+SAC | max | 34.39 ± 17.37 | 5.7 | 68.0 | |
| 15 | avg | 24.05 ± 14.20 | 4.7 | 54.0 | ||
| 15 | IR+MAC | max | 31.06 ± 15.03 | 5.4 | 58.0 | |
| 15 | avg | 20.51 ± 10.55 | 4.0 | 40.0 | ||
| 15 | IR+SAC | max | 38.70 ± 19.24 | 6.3 | 73.0 | |
| 15 | avg | 25.77 ± 13.62 | 4.9 | 49.0 |
Measurements were performed in PET studies of 15 patients; there were 24 tumor lesions in this group. All differences between measurements for tumors, livers, and urinary bladders were significant: tumor IR+MAC max vs. FBB+SAC max, P = 0.028; liver IR+SAC max vs. FBP+SAC max, P = 0.04; and IR+MAC max vs. FBP+MAC max, P = 0.021; bladder IR+MAC max vs. FBP+SAC max, P = 0.018; all other comparisons significant at P < 0.01.