Use of FDG-PET to monitor response to chemotherapy and radiotherapy in patients with lymphomas



Lymphoma is a heterogeneous group of diseases with many curable subtypes. Primary treatment cures a significant proportion of, but not all, patients. Patients not achieving a complete remission with primary treatment, or those who relapse later, have a second chance of cure with high-dose chemotherapy and haematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Response assessment is therefore crucial in the management of lymphomas. FDG-PET has an emerging role in assessing response, both at the end of and during treatment. This article will review the current published evidence and offer some suggestions on future directions from a clinician’s viewpoint.


PET Lymphoma Chemotherapy Radiotherapy Response to treatment 


  1. 1.
    Cheson BD, Horning SJ, Coiffier B, Shipp MA, Fisher RI, Connors JM, et al. Report of an international workshop to standardize response criteria for non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:1244–1253PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lewis E, Bernardino ME, Salvador PG, Cabanillas FF, Barnes PA, Thomas JL. Post-therapy CT-detected masses in lymphoma patients: is it viable tissue? J Comput Tomogr 1982;6:972–975Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Surbone A, Longo DL, DeVita VT Jr, Ihde DC, Duffey PL, Jaffe ES, et al. Residual abdominal masses in aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after combination chemotherapy: significance and management. J Clin Oncol 1988;6:1832–1837PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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(Suppl 1):S57–S60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cremerius U, Fabry U, Neuerberg J, Zinmy M, Osieka R, Buell U. Positron emission tomography with 18F-FDG to detect residual disease after therapy for malignant lymphoma. Nucl Med Commun 1998;19:1055–1063PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bangerter M, Kotzerke J, Greisshammer M, Elsner K, Reske SN, Bergmann L. Positron emission tomography with 18-fluorodeoxyglucose in the staging and follow-up of lymphoma in the chest. Acta Oncol 1999;38:799–804PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bangerter M, Moog F, Greisshammer M, et al. Role of whole-body FDG-PET imaging in predicting relapse of malignant lymphoma in patients with residual masses after treatment. Radiography 1999;5:155–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jerusalem G, Beguin Y, Fassotte MF, Najjar F, Paulus P, Rigo P, et al. Whole-body positron emission tomography using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose for post-treatment evaluation in Hodgkin’s disease and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma has higher diagnostic and prognostic value than classical computed tomography scan imaging. Blood 1999;94:429–433PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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):S147–S150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mikhaeel NG, Timothy AR, O’Doherty MJ, Hain S, Maisey MN. 18-FDG-PET as a prognostic indicator in the treatment of aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, comparison with CT. Leuk Lymphoma 2000;39:543–553PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Maisey NR, Hill ME, Webb A, Cunningham D, Flux GD, Padhani A, et al. Are 18fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and magnetic resonance imaging useful in the prediction of relapse in lymphoma residual masses? Eur J Cancer 2000;36:200–206PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Spaepen K, Stroobants S, Dupont P, Van Steenweghen SV, Thomas J, Vandenberghe P, et al. Prognostic value of positron emission tomography with fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose ([18F]FDG) after first-line chemotherapy in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: is [18F]FDG-PET a valid alternative to conventional diagnostic methods? J Clin Oncol 2001;19:414–419PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Van den Bossche B, Lambert B, De Winter F, Kolindou A, Dierckx RA, Noens L, et al. 18-FDG PET vs high-dose 67Ga scintigraphy for restaging and treatment follow-up of lymphoma patients. Nucl Med Commun 2002;23(11):1079–1083CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Filmont J-E, Vranjesevic D, Quon A, Margolis DJA, Ko F, Safaei A, et al. Conventional imaging and 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-D-glucose positron emission tomography for predicting the clinical outcome of previously treated non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma patients. Mol Imaging Biol 2003;5(4):232–239PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lavely WC, Delbeke D, Greer JP, Morgan DS, Byrne DW, Price RR, et al. FDG-PET in the follow-up management of patients with newly diagnosed Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma after first-line chemotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003;57(2):307–315PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kumar R, Xiu Y, Potenta S, Mavi A, Zhuang H, Yu JQ, et al. 18F-FDG PET for evaluation of the treatment response in patients with gastrointestinal tract lymphomas. J Nucl Med 2004;45:1796–1803PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zinzani PL, Fanti S, Battista G, Tani M, Castellucci P, Stefoni V, et al. Predicitve role of positron emission tomography (PET) in the outcome of lymphoma patients. Br J Cancer 2004;91:850–854PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Reinhardt MJ, Herkel C, Altehoefer C, Finke J, Moser E. Computed tomography and 18F-FDG positron emission tomography for therapy control of Hodgkin’s and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma patients: when do we really need FDG-PET? Ann Oncol 2005;16:1524–1529PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Juweid ME, Wiseman GA, Vose JM, Ritchie JM, Menda Y, Wooldridge JE, et al. Response assessment of aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma by integrated International Workshop Criteria and fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:4652–4661PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Spaepen K, Stroobants S, Dupont P, Thomas J, Vandenberghe P, Balzarini J, et al. Can positron emission tomography with (18F)-fluorodeoxyglucose after first-line treatment distinguish Hodgkin’s disease patients who need additional therapy from others in whom additional therapy would mean avoidable toxicity? Br J Haematol 2001;15:272–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hueltenschmidt B, Sautter-Bihl ML, Lang O, Bihl H. Whole body positron emission tomography in the treatment of Hodgkin disease. Cancer 2001;91:302–310PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Naumann R, Vaic A, Beuthien-Baumann B, Bredow J, Kropp J, Kittner T, et al. 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;115:793–800PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Weihrauch MR, Re D, Scheidhauer K, Ansen S, Dietlein M, Bischoff S, et al. Thoracic positron emission tomography using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose for the evaluation of residual mediastinal Hodgkin disease. Blood 2001;98:2930–2934PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    De Wit M, Bohuslavizki KH, Buchert R, Bumann D, Clausen M, Hossfeld DK. 18FDG-PET following treatment as valid predictor for disease-free survival in Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Ann Oncol 2001;12:29–37PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dittman H, Sokler M, Kollmansberger C, Dohmen BM, Baumann C, Kopp A, et al. Comparison of 18FDG-PET with CT scans in the evaluation of patients with residual and recurrent Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Oncol Rep 2001;8:1393–1399Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jerusalem G, Beguin Y, Fassotte MF, Belhocine T, Hustinx R, Rigo P, et al. Early detection of relapse by whole-body positron emission tomography in the follow-up of patients with Hodgkin’s disease. Ann Oncol 2003;14:123–130PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Guay C, Lepine M, Verreault J, Benard F. Prognostic value of PET using 18F-FDG in Hodgkin’s disease for posttreatment evaluation. J Nucl Med 2003;44:1225–1231PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Panizo C, Perez-Salazar M, Bendandi M, Rodriguez-Calvillo M, Boan JF, Garcia-Celloso MJ, et al. Positron emission tomography using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose for the evaluation of residual Hodgkin’s disease mediastinal masses. Leuk Lymph 2004;45(9):1829–1833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Filmont J-E, Yap CS, Ko F, Vranjesevic D, Quon A, Margolis DJA, et al. Conventional imaging and 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-D-glucose positron emission tomography for predicting the clinical outcome of patients with previously treated Hodgkin’s disease. Mol Imaging Biol 2004;6(1):47–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zinzani PL, Chierichetti F, Zompatori M, Tani M, Stefoni V, Garraffa G, et al. Advantages of positron emission tomography (PET) with respect to computed tomography in the follow-up of lymphoma patients with abdominal presentation. Leuk Lymphoma 2002;43(6):1239–1243PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Jerusalem G, Hustinx R, Beguin Y, Fillet G. Evaluation of therapy for lymphoma. Semin Nucl Med 2005;35:186–196PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Coiffier B, Lepage E, Briere J, Herbrecht R, Tilly H, Boubdallah R, et al. CHOP chemotherapy plus rituximab compared with CHOP alone in elderly patients with diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma. N Engl J Med 2002;346:235–242PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Jerusalem G, Beguin Y, Fassotte M-F, Najjar F, Paulus P, Rigo P, et al. Persistent tumour 18F-FDG uptake after a few cycles of polychemotherapy is predictive of treatment failure in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Haematologica 2000;85:613–618PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Spaepen K, Stroobants S, Dupont P, Vandenberghe P, Thomas J, de Groot T, et al. Early re-staging positron emission tomography with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose predicts outcome in patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Ann Oncol 2002;13:1356–1363PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ziljstra JM, Hoekstra OS, Raijhmakers PGHM, Comans EFI, van der Hoeven JJM, Teule GJJ, et al. 18FDG positron emission tomography versus 67Ga scintigraphy as prognostic test during chemotherapy for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Br J Haematol 2003;123:454–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Friedberg JW, Fischman A, Neuberg D, Kim H, Takvorian T, Ng AK, et al. FDG-PET is superior to gallium scintigraphy in staging and more sensitive in the follow-up of patients with de novo Hodgkin lymphoma. Leuk Lymphoma 2004;45:85–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Torizuka T, Nakamura F, Kanno T, Futatsubashi M, Yoshikawa E, Okada H, et al. Early therapy monitoring with FDG-PET in aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and Hodgkin’s lymphoma.Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2004;31:22–28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Haioun C, Itti E, Rahmouni A, Brice P, Rain J-D, Belhadj K, et al. [18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) in aggressive lymphoma: an early prognostic tool for predicting patient outcome. Blood 2005;106:1376–1381PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Mikhaeel NG, Hutchings M, Fields P, O’Doherty MJO, Timothy AR. FDG-PET after two to three cycles of chemotherapy predicts progression-free and overall survival in high-grade non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Ann Oncol 2005;16:1514–1523PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hutchings M, Mikhaeel NG, Fields PA, Nunan T, Timothy AR. Prognostic value of interim FDG-PET after two or three cycles of chemotherapy in Hodgkin lymphoma. Ann Oncol 2005;16:1160–1168PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hutchings M, Loft A, Hansen M, Pederson LM, Buhl T, Jurlander J, et al. FDG-PET after two cycles of chemotherapy predicts treatment failure and progression-free survival in Hodgkin lymphoma. Blood 2006;107:52–59PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
  43. 43.
    Romer W, Hanauske A, Ziegler S, Thodtmann R, Weber W, Fuchs C, et al. Positron emission tomography in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: assessment of chemotherapy with fluorodeoxyglucose. Blood 1998;91:4464–4471PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kostakoglu L, Coleman M, Leonard J, Kuji I, Zoe H. PET predicts prognosis after 1 cycle of chemotherapy in aggressive lymphoma and Hodgkin’s disease. J Nucl Med 2002;43:1018–1027PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Spaepen K, Stroobants S, Dupont P, Vandenberghe P, Maertens J, Bormans G, et al. Prognostic value of pretransplantation positron emission tomography using fluorine 18-fluorodeoxyglucose in patients with aggressive lymphoma treated with high-dose chemotherapy and stem cell transplantation. Blood 2003;102:53–59PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Cremerius U, Fabry U, Wildberger JE, Zimny M, Reinartz P, Nowak B, et al. Pre-transplant positron emission tomography (PET) using fluorine-18-fluoro-deoxyglucose (FDG) predicts outcome in patients treated with high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Bone Marrow Transplant 2002;30:103–111PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Becherer A, Mitterbauer M, Jaeger U, Kalhs P, Greinix HT, Karanikas G, et al. Positron emission tomography with(18F)2-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG-PET) predicts relapse of malignant lymphoma after high-dose therapy with stem cell transplantation. Leukaemia 2002;16:260–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Hart DP, Avivi I, Thomson KJ, Peggs KS, Morris EC, Goldstone AH, et al. Use of 18F-FDG positron emission tomography following allogeneic transplantation to guide adoptive immunotherapy with donor lymphocyte infusions. Br J Haematol 2005;128:824–829PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Clinical OncologyGuy’s and St. Thomas’ HospitalLondonUK

Personalised recommendations