FDG avidity and PET/CT patterns in primary gastric lymphoma

  • Lea Radan
  • Doron Fischer
  • Rachel Bar-Shalom
  • Eldad J. Dann
  • Ron Epelbaum
  • Nissim Haim
  • Diana Gaitini
  • Ora IsraelEmail author
Original Article



The use of 18F-fluoro-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) in primary gastric lymphoma (PGL) is challenging due to physiologic FDG activity in the stomach and variability in the degree of uptake in various histologic subtypes. This study assesses FDG avidity and PET/CT patterns in newly diagnosed PGL.


Sixty-two PET/CT studies of newly diagnosed PGL were reviewed (24 low-grade mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue [MALT], 38 aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma [AGNHL]). FDG avidity, patterns (focal/diffuse), and intensity (visually vs. the liver and SUVmax) were assessed and compared to 27 controls. Gastric CT abnormalities and extragastric sites were recorded.


Gastric FDG uptake was found in 55/62 (89%) PGL (71% MALT vs. 100% AGNHL, p < 0.001) and 63% controls. A diffuse pattern was found in 60% PGL (76% MALT vs. 53% AGNHL, p = NS) and 47% controls. FDG uptake higher than liver was found in 82% PGL (58% MALT vs. 97% AGNHL, p < 0.05) and 63% controls. SUVmax in FDG-avid PGLs was 15.3 ± 11.7 (5.4 ± 2.9 MALT vs. 19.7 ± 11.5 AGNHL, p < 0.001) and 4.6 ± 1.4 in controls. CT abnormalities were found in 79% PGL (thickening, n = 49; ulcerations, n = 22). Extra-gastric FDG-avid sites were seen in none of MALT, but 61% of AGNHL (nodal, n = 18; nodal and extranodal, n = 5).


FDG avidity was present in 89% of PGLs, including all patients with AGNHL but only 71% of MALT. FDG uptake can be differentiated, in particular in AGNHL-PGL, from physiologic tracer activity by intensity but not by pattern. Extragastric foci on PET and structural CT abnormalities are additional parameters that can improve PET/CT assessment of PGL. Defining FDG avidity and PET/CT patterns in AGNHL and a subgroup of MALT-PGL before treatment may be important for further monitoring therapy response.


Gastric lymphoma PET/CT FDG 


  1. 1.
    D’Amore F, Brincker H, Gronbaek K, Thorling K, Pedersen M, Jensen MK, et al. Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma of the gastrointestinal tract: a population-based analysis of incidence, geographic distribution, clinicopathological presentation features and prognosis. Danish Lymphoma Study Group. J Clin Oncol 1994;12:1673–84.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Akwaa A, Siddiqui N, Al-Mofleh I. Primary gastric lymphoma. World J Gastroenterol 2004;10:5–11.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zucca E, Conconi A, Cavalli F. Treatment of extranodal lymphoma. Best Pract Res Clin Haematol 2002;15:533–47.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Al-Sheneber I, Shibata HR. Primary gastric lymphoma. Cancer Control J 1997;4:245–52.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ambrosini V, Rubello D, Castellucci P, Nanni C, Farsad M, Zinzani P, et al. Diagnostic role of 18F-FDG PET in gastric MALT lymphoma. Nucl Med Review 2006;9:37–40.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    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;45:1796–803.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Phongkitkarun S, Varavithya V, Kazama T, Faria S, Mar M, Podoloff D, et al. Lymphomatous involvement of the gastrointestinal tract: evaluation by positron emission tomography with (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose. World J Gastroenterol 2005;11:7284–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Beal KP, Yeung HW, Yahalom J. FDG-PET scanning for detection and staging of extranodal marginal zone lymphomas of the MALT type: a report of 42 cases. Annals Oncology 2005;16:473–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schöder H, Noy A, Gönen M, Weng L, Green D, Erdi YE, et al. Intensity of 18Fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in positron emission tomography. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:4643–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hoffman M, Kletter K, Becherer A, Jager U, Chott A, Raderer M. 18F-fluoro-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography (18F-FDG-PET) for staging and follow-up of marginal zone B-cell lymphoma. Oncology 2003;64:336–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Even-Sapir E, Lievshitz G, Perry C, Herishanu Y, Lerman H, Metser U. Fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT patterns of extranodal involvement in patients with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and Hodgkin’s disease. PET Clin N Am 2006;1:251–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Metser U, Goor O, Lerman H, Naparstek E, Even-Sapir E. PET/CT patterns of extranodal lymphoma. Am J Roentgenol 2004;182:1579–86.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Maes B, De Wolf-Peeters C. Marginal zone cell lymphoma—an update on recent advances. Histopathology 2002;40:117–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Salvagno L, Sorarù M, Busetto M, Puccetti C, Sava C, Endrizzi L, et al. Gastric non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: analysis of 252 patients from a multicenter study. Tumori 1999;85:113–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lea Radan
    • 1
  • Doron Fischer
    • 2
  • Rachel Bar-Shalom
    • 3
  • Eldad J. Dann
    • 4
  • Ron Epelbaum
    • 5
  • Nissim Haim
    • 5
  • Diana Gaitini
    • 6
  • Ora Israel
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Nuclear MedicineRambam Health Care CampusHaifaIsrael
  2. 2.Department of Diagnostic ImagingRambam Health Care CampusHaifaIsrael
  3. 3.Department of Nuclear Medicine, Rambam Health Care Campus and R. and B. Rappaport School of Medicine Technion—Israel Institute of TechnologyHaifaIsrael
  4. 4.Department of Hematology, Rambam Health Care Campus, and R. and B. Rappaport School of MedicineTechnion—Israel Institute of TechnologyHaifaIsrael
  5. 5.Department of Oncology, Rambam Health Care Campus, and R. and B. Rappaport School of MedicineTechnion—Israel Institute of TechnologyHaifaIsrael
  6. 6.Department of Diagnostic ImagingRambam Health Care Campus, and R. and B. Rappaport School of Medicine, Technion—Israel Institute of TechnologyHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations