Hiring in life sciences? Share your open positions with our professional community. Read more Close

Advertisement

Standardized uptake value in normal bone using stand-alone SPECT with 99mTc hydroxymethylene diphosphonate.

Created on 13 Oct 2026

Authors

Hiroki Suenaga, Shiro Ishii, Keijiro Saito, Junko Hara, Ryo Yamakuni, Shigeyasu Sugawara, Kenji Fukushima, Hiroshi Ito

Published in

Fukushima journal of medical science. Oct 10, 2026. Epub Oct 10, 2026.

Abstract

To evaluate the feasibility of standardized uptake value (SUV) measurement and availability of bone single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) images using a stand-alone SPECT system.
30 patients with prostate cancer without bone metastases underwent 99mTc-HMDP bone SPECT using a stand-alone system. SUVmax, SUVpeak, and SUVmean were measured with standardized VOIs at C6, Th6, L3, S1, the sternum, femoral necks, iliac wings, and scapular spines. Associations with age, height, weight, and BMI were assessed using Pearson's correlation.
Across sites, mean±SD SUVmax, SUVpeak, and SUVmean were 2.53±0.96, 2.38±0.89, and 2.03±0.76. SUVmax ranged from 1.41±0.30 (femoral neck) to 3.55±0.74 (ilium). Regional coefficients of variation were 21-27%, and SUVs were lower than values reported for SPECT/CT. Age correlated positively with SUVmax in the sacrum and scapula and slightly negatively in the lumbar spine and sternum. Height correlated positively with sternum SUVmax and negatively with sacrum and scapula SUVmax. Weight and BMI correlated negatively with SUVmax in the sacrum, femoral neck, ilium, and scapula; BMI was also negatively correlated in the lumbar spine.
Bone SUVs measured with SPECT-only were lower than SPECT/CT but showed modest between-patient variability, supporting the feasibility of quantitative bone SPECT using a stand-alone system.

PMID:
42864034
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 13 Oct 2026.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Advertisement

Stats

  • Community rating n/a 0 votes
  • Reviewers' rating n/a 0 votes
  • Your rating

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

  • Recommendations n/a n/a positive of 0 vote(s)
  • Views 4
  • Comments 0

Recommended by

  • No recommendations yet.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.

Advertisement