目的：通过测量一体化同时采集ToF PET/MR盆腔扫描中不同MR序列动态重建后的PET图像SUV值有无差异，来分析其对于PET摄取是否会产生影响。方法：回顾性收集15例子宫恶性肿瘤患者（其中宫颈癌11例，子宫内膜癌4例）进行PET/MR盆腔局部扫描，总扫描时间为20 min。MR扫描序列为OAX T2WI，OAX T2WI fs，SAG T1WI，SAG T2WI fs，COR T2WI，OAX fs DWI 1000，OAX T2*WI map。按照MR不同序列的扫描时间，将PET图像进行与MR扫描序列时间完全相同一一对应的分段动态重建，测量重建后对应MR扫描序列的分段PET图像的病灶SUVmax、SUVmean及本底SUVmax、SUVmean数值。为避免时间因素的影响，再按照序列的最短扫描时间对PET图像重建，记录短时重建后PET图像的病灶SUVmax、SUVmean及本底SUVmax、SUVmean数值，并与MR对应的正常扫描时间的PET图像SUV值进行对比。随后对上述结果进行客观的统计学分析及主观评价。结果：通过测量动态重建后与MR序列一一对应的分段PET图像的病灶及本底SUVmax、SUVmean数值，利用ANOVA分析得到其与正常组织SUVmax、SUVmean之间均无显著性差异（P>0.05）；病灶位置不同序列与非同步整段的SUVmax、SUVmean存在显著性差异（P<0.05），而在本底，所有序列与非同步整段SUVmax、SUVmean没有显著性差异（P>0.05）。两个根据短时间重建获得的PET与MR动态重建的PET两者之间在SUVmax、SUVmean上均不存在显著性差异（P>0.05），即表明对应不同序列的PET图像虽然时间不同，但是时间上的差异不会带来PET定量参数的统计学的上的显著性差异。根据5个评分级别的国际标准原则，两位医师对于图像对于诊断的主观评分均≥4分，即均具有临床诊断价值，统计结果没有差异（P>0.05）。结论：不同序列（包括功能序列DWI以及R2*）在病灶位置的SUV值不能用整段的SUV值来替代，分段动态重建更为准确，而在本底位置的定量SUV，则可以用整段的SUV值来替代。在主观阅片上，整段PET和分段重建得到的PET图像是可以互相替代的。

Objective: To analyze whether different MR sequences have an effect on PET uptake by measuring the difference in SUV values of PET images after different sequences of MR pelvic reconstruction in integrated ToF PET/MR. Methods: A retrospective collection of 15 patients with uterine malignancies(including 11 cases of cervical cancer and 4 cases of endometrial cancer) was performed on PET/MR pelvic local scan. The total scan time was 20 mins. The MR scan sequences include OAX T2WI, OAX T2WI fs, SAG T1WI, SAG T2WI fs, COR T2WI, OAX fs DWI 1000, OAX T2*WI map. According to the scanning time of different sequences of MR, the PET images were reconstructed in exactly same time as the MR scanning sequences, and the SUVmax, SUVmean and background SUVmax and SUVmean of the segmented PET images corresponding to the MR scanning sequences were measured. In order to avoid the influence of time duration, the PET image was reconstructed according to the shortest scanning time of the same scanning direction sequence, and the lesion SUVmax, SUVmean and background SUVmax, SUVmean values of the PET image after short-term reconstruction are recorded, and the normal scanning time corresponding to MR is recorded. The PET image SUV values were compared. Objective statistical analysis and subjective evaluation were performed on the above results. Results: The lesions and background SUVmax and SUVmean values of the segmented PET images corresponding to the MR sequence were measured after dynamic reconstruction. There was no significant difference between SUVmax and SUVmean in normal tissues P>0.05; there were significant differences between SUVmax and SUVmean in different sequences of lesions and non-synchronized whole segments(SUVmax and SUVmean, P<0.05), and at the background, there was no significant difference between all sequences and the non-synchronized whole SUVmax and SUVmean(P>0.05). There was no significant difference in SUVmax and SUVmean between the PET obtained by short-term reconstruction and the PET dynamically reconstructed by MR(P>0.05). According to the international standard principles of the five score levels, the subjective scores of the two radiologists for the diagnosis were ≥4 points. Conclusion: The SUV values at the lesion location with different sequences(including functional sequences DWI and R2*WI) are not equivalent with the entire SUV values. It is more accurate to use the segmental dynamic reconstruction, and the quantitative SUV at the background position can represent the entire SUV value. On the subjective reading, the whole PET and segmented reconstructed PET images can be substituted for each other.