Skip to main content
. 2019 Jan 12;92(1096):20180756. doi: 10.1259/bjr.20180756

Figure 4.

Figure 4.

Effect of iMAR on SUVmean/max ± 95% CI of pathologic lesions (n = 122) in the vicinity of all included metal implants and effect of iMAR on the not artifact affected liver and blood pool, showing no significant differences between iMAR corrected PET SUV and noMAR PET SUV. CI, confidence interval, HU, Hounsfield unit; iMAR, iterative metal artifactreduction; SUV, standard uptake value.