For solid tumours, quantitative analysis of [(18)F]-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with integrated computed tomography potentially can have significant value in early response assessment and thereby discrimination between responders and non-responders at an early stage of treatment. Standardised strategies for this analysis have been proposed, and the positron emission tomography response criteria in solid tumours (PERCIST) criteria can be regarded as the current standard to perform quantitative analysis in a research setting, yet is not implemented in daily practice. However, several exceptions and limitations limit the feasibility of PERCIST criteria. In this article, we point out dilemmas that arise when applying proposed criteria like PERCIST on an expansive set of patients with metastasised solid tumours. Clinicians and scientists should be aware of these limitations to prevent that methodological issues impede successful introduction of research data into clinical practice. Therefore, to deliver on the high potential of quantitative imaging, consensus should be reached on a standardised, feasible and clinically useful analysis methodology. This methodology should be applicable in the majority of patients, tumour types and treatments.