Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2014 Sep 19.
Published in final edited form as: Mol Imaging Biol. 2013 Oct 30;16(3):431–440. doi: 10.1007/s11307-013-0699-7

Fig. 4.

Fig. 4

Association between three patient-level quantitative measures of FES uptake and clinical response. a shows the distribution of response compared to FES SUVmean (dynamic scan). b The response distribution of FES SUVmean, for the three lesions in the torso sweep with highest FDG SUVmax. c The response distribution compared to the average FES/FDG ratio, for the three lesions in the torso sweep with lowest FES/FDG ratio.