PET Scan

[NanaJoni]

Does anyone have knowledge re "SUV" numbers on PET scan results. I had my first scan last week and had a "max SUV 3.3 on C7" (cervical vertabrae). Also had "max SUV 3.4 liver". I've done lots of searches online (probably a bad idea) and some sites indicate an SUV over 2.5 indicates malignancy - others say any inflammation, arthritis, infection can cause the elevated numbers. Waiting for results from a follow-up MRI that was done this morning to get final call from my onc? The waiting is so terrifying (as you all know) so I thought I'd check with others here. Thanks for any help.

[ElaineM]

SUV indicates the amount of the radioactive glucose solution found by the scanner in each area of concern.
If there is cancer in the areas of concern it is probably small since the SUV amount was small. SUV numbers can be much higher. Also tumors have to be at least 5 or 6 cm to show up on a pet scan.
I hope this explanation helps. Take care.

[Jackie07]

The article in the link below is about PET in lung cancer. But I thought the information about SUV and tumor size might be relavent here:

http://theoncologist.alphamedpress.org/content/9/6/633.full

[Mandamoo]

I'm sorry Joni but I don't know the answer to your question. I wanted to ask Elaine though about her saying,
Also tumors have to be at least 5 or 6 cm to show up on a pet scan.
I don't know if this is true as the PET that I had detected my numerous lung mets - the largest of which was 8mm and an axilla node that was 2.1cm. It had trouble detecting my skin met significantly which was about 2.5 x 2cm. I am just wondering where the information that a tumor has to be 5-6cm to be detected came from? The dimensions of the tumors have been confirmed with CT.
I wish you the best with getting some answers Joni.

[ElaineM]

Amanda,
I got the information about size from the most experienced and senior pet/ct scan technician at the hospital where I go for my tests. I am very curious and often ask medical professionals questions about whatever is going on at the moment. I have learned alot and continue to learn alot everyday.

[Mandamoo]

Thanks Elaine - It is interesting isn't it? Mine definitely showed on PET and were confirmed on CT. Maybe they cannot accurately measure them on PET under 5-6cm?

I then had a bone scan show some warm spots - nothing on PET so it was assumed they were a result of changes in bone from chemo not mets. My onc was saying that they frequently get differences in results depending upon the scan methods.

we are learning all the time aren't we?

[NanaJoni]

Thanks ladies - maybe the size thing is as simple as 5-6 "mm" not "cm"???? I know my report showed some things that small (areas of inflammation-probably arthritis). I did talk to a nurse at my onc center and she was more reasurring yesterday that there was probably not any malignancies - just the inflammation type stuff. I think it's important for patients to always get copies of reports but also it's really hard not to freak about on the things we don't totally understand or the overall impact of the radiologist's wording. I'm still waiting on the MRI results which should be sometime this morning. If I haven't heard by lunchtime today, Robin told me she would call and get the report for me by phone so I won't have to spend the holiday weekend worrying.

[DeenaH]

A lot of PET/CT's won't show anything smaller than 1cm, but the higher resolution ones show very tiny ones. Some of my lung nodules were 4mm when they lit up on high resolution PET/CT. My guess is that the tech meant mm not cm.

Good luck with the MRI results. I hope shows no mets!

[NanaJoni]

Blessed yet again! MRI was ok - uptake was from arthritic changes and inflammation. Showed several bone spurs and the C7 vertabra is pretty much grinding on other bone but the nurse asked again "Don't you have a lot of back and neck pain" ....I'm happy to say that I don't and even happier that there are no mets. Tonight I will breathe and sleep easy again. Thanks for the help and concern.