Skip to main content
. 2021 Jan 19;298(3):517–530. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2020200028

Figure 5:

Quantitative versus semiquantitative imaging. Representative standard uptake value ratio (SUVR) (left column), binding potential (BP) (center column), and relative perfusion measure (R1) (right column) carbon 11 Pittsburgh compound B images. In contrast with semiquantitative SUVR from a 20–30–minute static acquisition, quantitative parametric BP images derived from dynamic acquisition not only yield much higher contrast images than SUVR, facilitating visual inspection by eliminating nonspecific binding, but dynamic acquisition also allows for quantification of regional relative perfusion measures that add valuable information for assessment of a patient or therapeutic trial participant.

Quantitative versus semiquantitative imaging. Representative standard uptake value ratio (SUVR) (left column), binding potential (BP) (center column), and relative perfusion measure (R1) (right column) carbon 11 Pittsburgh compound B images. In contrast with semiquantitative SUVR from a 20–30–minute static acquisition, quantitative parametric BP images derived from dynamic acquisition not only yield much higher contrast images than SUVR, facilitating visual inspection by eliminating nonspecific binding, but dynamic acquisition also allows for quantification of regional relative perfusion measures that add valuable information for assessment of a patient or therapeutic trial participant.