 I've got some questions and answers that I'll try to address. Let's see, is there an SUV value that could be used to distinguish between post-radiation osteonecrosis versus local regional residual disease recurrence if imaging performed before three months or 12 weeks, I think, post-radiotherapy? So my answer to this question is almost always no, there's never an SUV cutoff that, you know, will help you answer a question like that. It's really for me, more of like a visual interpretation. And sometimes a lot of times I think actually we can't use, or we can't really come down in these cases of like post-radiation. And I often will give a read that says this could represent IR or, and I recommend a short-term follow-up PET CT because I think that that sometimes we just need more time to sort out a finding. Okay, in post chemo-radiation scenario, reptile cancer responses assessment, which is better MRI or PET? So that is an interesting question. And a lot of times I think they're actually used together. I think that MRI and PET will go together nicely to give you kind of the anatomy, right? Because we don't get much anatomy detail with PET because oftentimes we're using a non-contrast or sometimes a contrast CT, but we all know that contrast MR is really superior to either of those. So I think MRI is often done in the first instance to see if there's anything questionable. And then if there is a finding that's just residual disease, PET can be done after that to kind of work it out. But I think that the best scenario is using them together. I think stepwise we do MR first and then PET to troubleshoot that. But I think PET can actually be a little bit more definitive, right? If it's negative, then we feel really good about it. If it's positive, we kind of don't know if we're in that scenario of post treatment change versus residual disease and we might need kind of more imaging. Why is comment of liver SUV needed as part of technique in the report? So we kind of touched on this before. It's really just more for quality control and in terms of making sure that our bio-distribution is good and that the patient had adequate fasting and that we have like a good quality of report. And then as I mentioned, we do use it in interpretation for Doville scoring and the assessment of lymphoma. But I think for the limitations that we also discussed, it's not as big of a part of interpretation as it used to be. Okay. Do you measure a lesion on a PET image if it's ill-defined on CT? That's a really good question. So sometimes the answer is yes. If I'm reading a PET that there's been diagnostic imaging done in the past month or two months, for instance, like a pulmonary mass or a pulmonary nodule, I know that because of technique that the measurements that are taken on the diagnostic CT are going to be significantly more reliable than what's on my attenuation correction CT. And so if I'm providing a measurement, I will use the one from the diagnostic. But there are lots of cases where we either don't have diagnostic imaging available to us or not within the right timeframe or the lesion has changed or a really good example of this is when you're reading a post-radiation change and there's a recurrence and by CT you cannot tell where the tumor is. So in those cases where it's very ill-defined by CT, I will measure on the PET, but one strategy I use is I really back off of the avidity and turn down the window level so that you're not getting a blooming artifact where if something's very, very avid, it will sometimes appear bigger than it actually is. But when you back off the window and kind of open up the level a little bit, at some point the lesion will stop getting smaller and it'll just start getting kind of less avid and that's where you kind of know what the true size of your finding is. I find that really actually important and helpful with donutate imaging because those are often so avid that we open up the study and we say, oh my gosh, there's this like two centimeter tumor. How did we not see it on CT? But then when you back off the avidity, you're like, oh, it's actually only like, you know, 0.9 centimeters. It's a very small tumor. It's just the, it's so avid that it looks like it's very big. So yes, sometimes I do measure size on the PET but I also make sure that I'm not overmeasuring by manipulating the window for that. How do you divide uptake of FDG minimal mild intense as their formula? So that's a great question too. I'll use what I have here on the screen right now to kind of show you. So like, and I wish this was in black and white because that's how we actually read, right? The colors just for show but, you know, something that's like intensely FDG avid, it should really be the most intense thing on the scan. It should really be kind of in line with what we see in the bladder and the collecting system. So like all of these findings in the lung I would characterize as intense. When things are kind of less intense than that, they're still, you know, like significantly greater than, you know, say liver or they're, you know, very noticeable but they're not quite as like avid as collecting system or, you know, what we're seeing here in the lung. I would give that kind of like a moderate, you know, maybe kind of this degree of uptake that we're seeing here. And then mild is sort of kind of, it's not negative but it's not very impressive. And, you know, maybe what we're seeing in the liver here I would characterize as mild. And then, you know, this stuff that we're seeing in the GI tract which is like, it's noticeable, right? But it's not very impressive. This is probably minimal. And then when I say barely perceptible this is just kind of a personal thing that's where I have to really crank the window to be able to see the finding. And it's not negative but it's very, very low degree of uptake. So it's definitely a visual thing. There's not a formula. There's not like an SUV cutoff but it's just kind of picking a scale and, you know, using it and being consistent with it. I'll just do one more here. Somebody asked how to report Doville if adenopathy is present which may or may not be lymphoma related. So with the Doville criteria there's, you know, five categories that we use and then there's an X qualifier. So if I think that a finding is not related to lymphoma but it's very FDG avid, for example like thyroiditis or something you can give it a designation of a Doville X which is what you're saying is this is very avid and it's abnormal but I don't think it's related to lymphoma. You can use that for lymph nodes too if you think that they're not related to lymphoma but you have to be very careful in attributing an FDG avid lymph node to not being lymphoma in the case of, you know a patient with suspected or known lymphoma. Oh, sorry. One more last one because it's important with PSMA do you use SUV values? And for the answers that we kind of like or for the reasons we talked about earlier in this in the slides, no because we don't really know what they mean outside of FDG. So that's the short answer. There's a longer answer but that's the short answer. So I think that's all we have time for but thank you all for your attention and I hope that you guys got something out of today's lecture.