Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2012 Dec 1.
Published in final edited form as: Radiother Oncol. 2011 Jun 12;101(3):356–361. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2011.05.040

Table 2.

Agreement between metabolic tumor volume and pathology volume.

PET volume Number of patients – n (%)
MTV underestimates pathology volume
Agree within 2mm MTV overestimates pathology volume
>5mm 2–5mm 2–5mm >5mm
Absolute SUV thresholds
 MTV2.0 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (13) 13 (57) 7 (30)
 MTV3.0 0 (0) 2 (9) 7 (30) 8 (35) 6 (26)
 MTV4.0 1 (4) 1 (4) 13 (57) 5 (22) 3 (13)
 MTV5.0 2 (9) 1 (4) 13 (57) 7 (30) 0 (0)
 MTV6.0 2 (9) 5 (22) 10 (43) 6 (26) 0 (0)
Relative SUV thresholds
 MTV30% 0 (0) 1 (4) 9 (39) 12 (52) 1 (4)
 MTV40% 1 (4) 2 (9) 12 (52) 7 (30) 1 (4)
 MTV50% 1 (4) 5 (22) 14 (61) 2 (9) 1 (4)
 MTV60% 3 (13) 8 (35) 11 (48) 1 (4) 0 (0)
 MTV70% 3 (13) 9 (39) 10 (43) 1 (4) 0 (0)
Gradient-based
 MTVgradient 1 (4) 5 (22) 14 (61) 3 (13) 0 (0)
Tumor grade
 MTVtumor grade 0 (0) 4 (17) 16 (70) 3 (13) 0 (0)

This table represents the circumferential marginal difference between PET volume and pathology volume, which was defined as the circumferential distance in millimeters required to expand or shrink the metabolic tumor volume (MTV) such that the MTV and pathology volumes were equal (see Methods for details).