IN GENERAL, BUT NOT ABSOLUTELY.... SUV's of under 3.5 are not good indicators of malignancy, above that you start to think it is a possibility, over 4.5 and it is likely, but again this is not an absolute diagnositic science. Once again- these numbers are not absolutes!!!! So don't hold me or anyone else to this. PET's, as we have stated many times before, are not a diagnostic tool for malignancy, but glucose burn. When combined with a CT that shows encapulation or something else they are very helpful in determining if something is going south or not. Acute infection and other pathologies can cause PET's to highlight an area. They are one tool in trying to figure out , without biopsy what is going on. In diferential diagnosis you are trying to use as many tools as possible to fill in the blanks. Some of those tools are not even part of medicine but part of interviews with the patient. Has he ever, or did he continue to engage in known risk factors, are there other symspotoms that might be indicative of a different avenue of thought, a fever for infection...etc. Diagnosis without biopsy is part art and part educated guessing. Differential diagnosis is the selection of the most likely choice by comparing it to other likely choices. SUV's are just one piece of the puzzle, by themselves, and without collaborating additional data they are not conclusive. By the by Danny, your post was essentially correct, and where the lines are drawn in the numerical results meaning malignancy or not, vary from diagnostic center to center. There are published guidlines for radiologists, from which I took my information, but 2 institutions that I respect, have a different scale,,,,,it isn't a pure and absolute science.

Brian, stage 4 oral cancer survivor. OCF Founder and Director. The first responsibility of a leader is to define reality. The last is to say thank you. In between, the leader is a servant.