FDG-PET/CT in re-staging of patients with lymphoma

  • L. S. Freudenberg
  • G. Antoch
  • P. Schütt
  • T. Beyer
  • W. Jentzen
  • S. P. Müller
  • R. Görges
  • M. R. Nowrousian
  • A. Bockisch
  • J. F. Debatin
Original Article


The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical significance of combined fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) in patients with lymphoma, and to compare the FDG-PET/CT staging results with those of FDG-PET and CT alone. Twenty-seven patients were studied. Each patient had clinical follow-up for >12 months and entered complete follow-up evaluation. Patient-based evaluation showed a sensitivity of 78% for CT alone, 86% for FDG-PET alone, 93% for CT and FDG-PET read side by side, and 93% for combined FDG-PET/CT imaging. Region-based evaluation showed a sensitivity for regional lymph node involvement of 61%, 78%, 91% and 96% respectively. FDG-PET/CT imaging is superior to CT alone (P=0.02) and has additional benefit over FDG-PET alone due to exact anatomical localisation. We conclude that FDG-PET/CT imaging is accurate in re-staging lymphoma and offers advantages over separate FDG-PET and CT imaging.

Key words

Lymphoma Staging PET PET/CT FDG 



The authors thank D. Porsch-Plottek and B. Terschüren for their assistance with the data acquisition.


  1. 1.
    DeVita VT, Canellos GP. The lymphomas. Semin Hematol 1999; 36:84–94.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jotti G, Bonadonna G. Prognostic factors in Hodgkin’s disease; implications for modern treatment. Anticancer Res 1988; 8:749–760.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Marshall WH Jr, Breiman RS, Harell GS, Glatstein E, Kaplan HS. Computed tomography of abdominal para-aortic lymph node disease: preliminary observation with a 6 second scanner. Am J Roentgenol 1977; 128:759–764.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Van den Bossche B, Lambert B, de Winter F, Kolindou A, Dierckx RA, Noen L, van de Wiele C.18FDG PET versus high-dose 67Ga scintigraphy for restaging and treatment follow-up of lymphoma patients. Nucl Med Commun 2002; 23:1079–1083.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Janicek M, Kaplan W, Neuberg D, Canellos GP, Shulman LN, Shipp MA. Early restaging gallium scans predict outcome in poor-prognosis patients with aggressive Hodgkin’s lymphoma treated with high-dose CHOP chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 1997; 15:1631–1637.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Maisey NR, Hill ME, Webb A, et al. Are 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and magnetic resonance imaging useful in the prediction of relapse in lymphoma residual masses? Eur J Cancer 2000; 36:200–206.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mikhaeel NG, Timothy AR, Hain SF, O’Doherty MJ. 18-FDG-PET for the assessment of residual masses on CT following treatment of lymphomas. Ann Oncol 2000; 11(Suppl 1):147–150.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cremerius U, Fabry U, Neuerburg J, Zimny M, Osieka R, Buell U. Positron emission tomography with18F-FDG to detect residual disease after therapy for malignant lymphoma. Nucl Med Commun 1998; 19:1055–1063.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss A, Strauss LS, Goldschmidt H, Lorenz WJ, Maier-Borst W, van Kaick G. Evaluation of tumour metabolism and multidrug resistance in patients with treated malignant lymphomas. Eur J Nucl Med 1995; 22:434–442.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    de Wit M, Bumann D, Beyer W, Herbst K, Clausen M, Hossfeld DK. Whole-body positron emission tomography (PET) for diagnosis of residual mass in patients with lymphoma. Ann Oncol 1997; 8:57–60.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kostakoglu L, Coleman M, Leonard JP, Kuji I, Zoe H, Goldsmith SJ. PET predicts prognosis after 1 cycle of chemotherapy in aggressive lymphoma and Hodgkin’s disease. J Nucl Med 2002; 43:1018–1027.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Spaepen K, Stroobants S, Dupont P, Vandenberghe P, Maertens J, Bormans G, Thomas J, Balzarini J, De Wolf-Peeters C, Mortelmans L, Verhoef G. Prognostic value of pretransplant positron emission tomography using fluorine18-fluorodeoxyglucose in patients with aggressive lymphoma treated with high-dose chemotherapy and stem cell transplantation. Blood 2003; 102:53–59.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Spaepen K, Stroobants S, Dupont P, Vandenberghe P, Thomas J, de Groot T, Balzarini J, De Wolf-Peeters C, Mortelmans L, Verhoef G. Early restaging positron emission tomography with (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose predicts outcome in patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Ann Oncol 2002; 13:1356–1363.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gambhir SSJ, Czernin J, Schwimmer J, Silverman DHS, Coleman RE, Phelps ME. A tabulated summary of the FDG PET literature. J Nucl Med 2001; 42:1S–93S.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Charron M, Beyer T, Bohnen NN, Kinahan PE, Dachille M, Jerin J, Nutt R, Meltzer CC, Villemagne V, Townsend DW. Image analysis in patients with cancer studied with a combined PET and CT scanner. Clin Nucl Med 2000; 25:905–910.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Beyer T, Townsend DW, Brun T, Kinahan PE, Charron M, Roddy R, Jerin J, Young J, Byars L, Nutt R. A combined PET/CT scanner for clinical oncology. J Nucl Med 2000; 41:1369–1379.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Townsend DW, Cherry SR. Combined anatomy and function: the path of true image fusion. Eur Radiol 2001; 11:1968–1974.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Beyer T, Townsend DW, Blodgett TM. Dual-modality PET/CT tomography for clinical oncology. Q J Nucl Med 2002; 46:24–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kinahan PE, Townsend DW, Beyer T, Sashin D. Attenuation correction for a combined 3D PET/CT scanner. Med Phys 1998; 25:2046–2053.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Antoch G, Freudenberg LS, Stattaus J, Jentzen W, Mueller SP, Debatin JF, Bockisch A. Whole-body positron emission tomography-CT: optimized CT using oral and IV contrast materials. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002; 179:1555–1560.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Beyer T, Antoch G, Blodgett T, Freudenberg LS, Akhurst T, Mueller S. Dual-modality PET/CT imaging: the effect of respiratory motion on combined image quality in clinical oncology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003; 30:588–596.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Huang SC. Anatomy of SUV. Nucl Med Biol 2000; 27:643–646.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Strauss LG, Conti PS. The applications of PET in clinical oncology. J Nucl Med 1991; 32:623–648.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Radford JA, Cowan RA, Flanagan M, Dunn G, Crowther D, Johnson RJ, Eddleston B. The significance of residual mediastinal abnormality on the chest radiograph following treatment for Hodgkin’s disease. J Clin Oncol 1988; 6:940–946.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Surbone A, Longo DL, DeVita VT, Ihde DC, Duffey PL, Jaffe ES, Solomon D, Hubbard SM, Young RC. Residual abdominal masses in aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after combination chemotherapy: significance and management. J Clin Oncol 1988; 6:1832–1837.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Naumann R, Vaic A, Beuthin-Baum B, Bredow J, Kropp J, Kittner T, Franke W, Ehnihger E. Prognostic value of positron emission tomography in the evaluation of post-treatment residual mass in patients with Hodgkin’s disease and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Br J Haematol 2001; 115:793–800.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. S. Freudenberg
    • 1
  • G. Antoch
    • 2
  • P. Schütt
    • 3
  • T. Beyer
    • 1
  • W. Jentzen
    • 1
  • S. P. Müller
    • 1
  • R. Görges
    • 1
  • M. R. Nowrousian
    • 3
  • A. Bockisch
    • 1
  • J. F. Debatin
    • 2
  1. 1.Clinic and Policlinic for Nuclear MedicineUniversity of EssenEssenGermany
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyUniversity of EssenEssenGermany
  3. 3.Department of Internal Medicine (Cancer Research)University of EssenEssenGermany

Personalised recommendations