Assessing treatment response on PET-CT

PET-CT

First and second year — the floor first, then every step

Compare like with like — same scanner, same uptake time, same criteria — and know which scoring system the tumour type uses.

Orient first

  • RESPONSE IS A COMPARISON, so the validity of the report depends on the comparability of the two studies. SUV is exquisitely sensitive to uptake time, blood glucose, scanner and reconstruction; comparing across scanners or uptake times produces changes that are technical, not biological.
  • The criteria are TUMOUR-SPECIFIC. Lymphoma uses the 5-point Deauville scale against mediastinal blood pool and liver; solid tumours generally use size-based criteria with metabolic supplements. Applying the wrong system produces a confidently wrong category.
  • On the Deauville scale, 1–3 is generally a complete metabolic response and 4–5 is residual disease — the reference points being MEDIASTINAL BLOOD POOL and LIVER, not an absolute number.
  • TIMING drives false positives: post-chemotherapy inflammation, post-radiotherapy change, colony-stimulating factor effect on marrow, and post-surgical healing all take up avidly. Scanning too early manufactures disease.
  • FLARE and PSEUDOPROGRESSION are recognised, particularly with immunotherapy, and have their own response criteria.

Acquire the study

  • Confirm the patient was fasted, the blood glucose was within protocol, and the UPTAKE TIME matches the baseline study — record all three.
  • Confirm the same scanner and reconstruction as the baseline where possible; state it when they differ, because the comparison is then qualified.
  • Confirm the interval from the last treatment is adequate for the modality and the agent.
  • Review the CT component in its own right — it carries findings the PET does not.

The manoeuvre

  • State the indication, the treatment given, and the interval since the last cycle.
  • Confirm and record uptake time and blood glucose, and compare them with the baseline study.
  • Identify the reference regions: mediastinal blood pool and liver.
  • Score each site of previously known disease against the appropriate system and its reference regions.
  • Measure SUVmax at each site the same way as at baseline, and note the anatomical location so the same lesion is being compared.
  • Look for NEW sites of uptake, which outrank any improvement elsewhere.
  • Interpret marrow and splenic uptake against recent growth-factor use.
  • Review the CT for non-avid disease, complications and incidental findings.
  • Give an overall response category, naming the criteria and the version.

What confirms it

  • A complete metabolic response is uptake at or below the defined reference region on a comparable study at an adequate interval.

What licenses you to exclude it

  • ⚠️ PET IS NOT A BIOPSY. Residual uptake is not proof of viable tumour, and absent uptake is not proof of its absence — small-volume, mucinous and some low-grade tumours are poorly avid.
  • A scan performed too soon after treatment cannot exclude residual disease and should be reported as too early rather than as a response.
  • A non-comparable study (different uptake time, glucose out of range, different scanner) qualifies every conclusion — say so explicitly.

The classic misread

  • Comparing SUV across different uptake times or scanners.
  • Applying solid-tumour criteria to lymphoma or vice versa.
  • Calling post-treatment inflammation residual disease.
  • Reporting the PET and ignoring the CT component.

Reference values

Each value carries the caveat that keeps it from being misused. Normal limits and diagnostic criteria are kept apart on purpose: a disease cut-off read as a normal range is the more dangerous mistake.

Normal limits

  • Liver (PET reference) · Hepatic FDG reference

    liver SUVmean / SUVmax in a right-lobe ROI is the Deauville score-4/5 and PERCIST reference — a named background, not a disease cut-off

    Steatosis, cirrhosis and chemotherapy change liver FDG. Say so when the reference organ is abnormal rather than inventing a substitute number. Versioned criterion — verify against the current edition before clinical use.

    PET-CT

  • Mediastinal blood pool · Mediastinal blood-pool reference

    the FDG activity in the mediastinal blood pool is the Deauville-score reference for scores 2 versus 3 (see Deauville entry)

    Blood-pool activity is a REFERENCE, not a lesion SUV to "beat" with a remembered number. Measure it in a clean aortic lumen. Versioned criterion — verify against the current edition before clinical use.

    PET-CT

Diagnostic criteria

  • Lymphoma (interim / end-of-treatment PET) · Deauville 5-point score — how to report it

    a named score: 1 no uptake, 2 ≤ mediastinal blood pool, 3 > blood pool but ≤ liver, 4 moderately > liver, 5 markedly > liver or new lesions — 1–3 is the conventional complete-metabolic-response band in many pathways, and 3 is sometimes treated as equivocal

    Score 3 is the pathway-dependent hinge — some trials treat it as negative, some as positive. Name Lugano / the trial, and do not invent a sixth point. Versioned criterion — verify against the current edition before clinical use.

    PET-CT

  • Solid tumour (PET response) · PERCIST — how to report it

    a named response system: SUL peak in a measurable target, with CMR / PMR / SMD / PMD bands defined in the PERCIST paper — not a homemade percent drop

    PERCIST and RECIST are different axes (metabolic versus anatomic). Do not mix their percentages. Uptake time and the same scanner / reconstruction are part of the measurement. Versioned criterion — verify against the current edition before clinical use.

    PET-CT

See it on real cases

Direct links to Radiopaedia — the reference article and worked cases with their images. Each opens on Radiopaedia.

Key papers

Reviews and guidelines from RSNA, ESR and related journals. Each opens at its DOI.

  1. Practical PERCIST: A Simplified Guide to PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.0 ↗O JH, Lodge MA, Wahl RL · Radiology 2016RSNA · PubMed
  2. From RECIST to PERCIST: Evolving Considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors ↗Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, et al. · Journal of Nuclear Medicine 2009SNMMI · PubMed
  3. FDG PET/CT-based Response Assessment in Malignancies ↗Parihar AS, Dehdashti F, Wahl RL · RadioGraphics 2023RSNA · PubMed
  4. PET/CT for therapy response assessment in lymphoma ↗Hutchings M, Barrington SF · Journal of Nuclear Medicine 2009SNMMI · PubMed

More searches

More in Oncology, nuclear and IR