Early prediction of response to therapy: the clinical implications in Hodgkin’s and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma

Editorial

References

  1. 1.
    Fisher RI. Overview of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: biology, staging, and treatment. Semin Oncol 2003;30(2 suppl 4):3–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Evans LS, Hancock BW. Non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Lancet 2003;362:139–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Moser EC, Noordijk EM, van Glabbeke M, Teodorovic I, de Wolf-Peeters C, Carde P, et al. Long-term efficacy of the CHVmP/BV regimen used for aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in three randomised EORTC trials. Eur J Cancer 2004;40:474–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hasenclever D, Diehl V, Armitage JO. A prognostic score for advanced Hodgkin’s disease. N Engl J Med 1998;339:1506–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tubiana M, Henry-Amar M, Carde P, et al. Toward comprehensive management tailored to prognostic factors of patients with clinical stages I and II in Hodgkin’s disease. The EORTC Lymphoma Group controlled clinical trials: 1964–1987. Blood 1989;73:47–56.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Josting A, Diehl V. Current treatment strategies in early stage Hodgkin’s disease. Curr Treat Options Oncol 2003;4:297–305.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hoppe RT, Advani RH, Bierman PJ, et al. Hodgkin disease/lymphoma. Clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2006;4:210–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shipp MA, Harrington DP, Anderson JR, et al. The International Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Prognostic Factors Project. A predictive model for aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. N Engl J Med 1993;329:987–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kuppers R, Yahalom J, Josting A. Advances in biology, diagnostics, and treatment of Hodgkin’s disease. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2006;12(suppl 1):66–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bonadonna G, Zambetti M, Valagussa P. Sequential or alternating doxorubicin and CMF regimens in breast cancer with more than three positive nodes. Ten-year results. JAMA 1995;273:542–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Norton L. A Gompertzian model of human breast cancer growth. Cancer Res 1988;48:7067–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Norton L, Simon R. The Norton–Simon hypothesis revisited. Cancer Treat Rep 1986;70:163–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Armitage JO, Weisenburger DD, Hutchins M, et al. Chemotherapy for diffuse large-cell lymphoma—rapidly responding patients have more durable remissions. J Clin Oncol 1986;4:160–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Boyd DB, Coleman M, Papish SW, et al. COP-BLAM III: infusional combination chemotherapy for diffuse large cell lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 1998;6:425–33.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Coiffier B, Bryon PA, Berger F, et al. Intensive and sequential combination chemotherapy for aggressive malignant lymphomas (protocol LNH-80). J Clin Oncol 1986;4:147–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Guglielmi C, Amadori S, Ruco LP, et al. Combination chemotherapy for the treatment of diffuse aggressive lymphomas: FMACHOP update. Semin Oncol 1987;14:104–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vitolo U, Bertini M, Tarella C, et al. MACOP-B treatment for advanced stage diffuse large cell lymphomas: a multicentre Italian study. Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol 1989;25:1441–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ginsberg SJ, Anderson JR, Gottlieb AJ, et al. A randomized trial of high-dose methotrexate versus standard-dose methotrexate following cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin (adriamycin), vincristine, and prednisone with or without bleomycin in the therapy of diffuse large cell lymphoma: preliminary report of Cancer and Leukemia Group B Study 7851. NCI Monogr 1987;5:77–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Verdonck LF, van Putten WL, Hagenbeek A, et al. Comparison of CHOP chemotherapy with autologous bone marrow transplantation for slowly responding patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. N Engl J Med 1995;332:1045–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jochelson M, Mauch P, Balikian J, Rosenthal D, Canellos G. The significance of the residual mediastinal mass in treated Hodgkin’s disease. J Clin Oncol 1985;3:637–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ries LAG, Harkins D, Krapcho M, et al (eds). SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2003, National Cancer Institute. Bethesda, MD, http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2003/, based on November 2005 SEER data submission, posted to the SEER web site, 2006.
  22. 22.
    Gospodarowicz MK, Meyer RM. The management of patients with limited-stage classical Hodgkin lymphoma. Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program 2006;253–8.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Straus DJ, Portlock CS, Qin J, Myers J, Zelenetz AD, Moskowitz C, Noy A, Goy A, Yahalom J. Results of a prospective randomized clinical trial of doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) followed by radiation therapy (radiotherapy) versus ABVD alone for stages I, II, and IIIA nonbulky Hodgkin disease. Blood 2004;104:3483–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Meyer RM, Gospodarowicz MK, Connors JM, et al. Randomized comparison of ABVD chemotherapy with a strategy that includes radiotherapy therapy in patients with limited-stage Hodgkin’s lymphoma: National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group and the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:4634–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hutchings M, Mikhaeel NG, Fields PA, et al. Prognostic value of interim FDG-PET after two or three cycles of chemotherapy in Hodgkin lymphoma. Ann Oncol 2005;16:1160–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hutchings M, Loft A, Hansen M, et al. FDG-PET after two cycles of chemotherapy predicts treatment failure and progression-free survival in Hodgkin lymphoma. Blood 2006;107:52–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gallamini A, Rigacci L, Merli F, et al. The predictive value of positron emission tomography scanning performed after two courses of standard therapy on treatment outcome in advanced stage Hodgkin’s disease. Haematologica 2006;91:475–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kostakoglu L, Goldsmith SJ, Leonard JP, et al. FDG-PET after 1 cycle of therapy predicts outcome in diffuse large cell lymphoma and classic Hodgkin disease. Cancer 2006;107:2678–87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zinzani PL, Tani M, Fanti S, et al. Early positron emission tomography (PET) restaging: a predictive final response in Hodgkin’s disease patients. Ann Oncol 2006;17:1296–300.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gallamini A, Hutchings M, Rigacci L, et al. Early interim 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography is prognostically superior to international prognostic score in advanced-stage Hodgkin’s lymphoma: a report from a joint Italian–Danish study. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:3746–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    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;39:543–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Haioun C, Itti E, Rahmouni A, 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;106:1376–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mikhaeel NG, Hutchings M, Fields PA, O’Doherty MJ, 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;16:1514–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Dupuis J, Gaulard P, Hemery F, et al. Respective prognostic values of germinal center phenotype and early (18)fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography scanning in previously untreated patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Haematologica 2007;92:778–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Spaepen K, Stroobants S, Dupont P, et al. Early restaging positron emission tomography with (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose predicts outcome in patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Ann Oncol 2002;13:1356–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Philip T, Guglielmi C, Hagenbeek A, et al. Autologous bone marrow transplantation as compared with salvage chemotherapy in relapses of chemotherapy-sensitive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. N Engl J Med 1995;333:1540–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Nademanee A, Schmitdt GM, O’Donell MR, et al. High dose chemotherapy followed by autologous bone marrow transplantation as consolidation during first complete remission adult patients with poor-risk aggressive lymphoma: a pilot study. Blood 1992;80:1130–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Pettengel R, Radford GR, Morgenstern JH, et al. Survival benefit from high-dose therapy with autologous blood progenitor cell transplantation in poor prognosis non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 1996;14:586–92.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Gianni AM, Bregni MA, Bregni M, et al. High-dose chemotherapy and autologous bone marrow transplantation compared with MACOP-B in aggressive large cell lymphoma. N Engl J Med 1997;336:1290–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Haioun C, Lepage E, Gisselbrecht C, et al. Survival benefit of high-dose therapy in poor-risk aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: final analysis of the prospective LNH 87-2 protocol. A Group d’Etudes des Lymphomes de l’Adulte study. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:3025–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Santini G, Salvagno L, Leoni P, et al. VACOP-B versus VACOP-B plus autologous bone marrow transplantation for advanced diffuse non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: results of a prospective randomized trial by the non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma cooperative study group. J Clin Oncol 1998;16:2796–802.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Martelli M, Vignetti M, Zinzani PL, et al. High-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous bone marrow versus dexametasone, cisplatin and cytarabine in aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma with partial response to front-line chemotherapy: a retrospective randomized Italian multicenter study. J Clin Oncol 1996;14:534–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kluin-Nelemans JC, Zagonel V, Anastaopoulou A, et al. Standard chemotherapy with or without high-dose chemotherapy for aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: randomized phase III EORTC study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93:22–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Strehl J, Mey U, Glasmacher A, et al. High-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation as first-line therapy in aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: a meta-analysis. Haematologica 2003;88:1304–15.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Arranz R, Conde E, Grande C, et al. Dose-escalated CHOP and tailored intensification with IFE according to early response and followed by BEAM/autologous stem-cell transplantation in poor-risk aggressive B-cell lymphoma: a prospective study from the GEL-TAMO Study Group. Eur J Haematol 2008;80:227–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Schot BW, Pruim J, van Imhoff GW, Sluiter WJ, Vaalburg W, Vellenga E. The role of serial pre-transplantation positron emission tomography in predicting progressive disease in relapsed lymphoma. Haematologica 2006;1:490–5.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Juweid ME, Wiseman GA, Vose JM, Ritchie JM, Menda Y, Wooldridge JE. Response assessment of aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma by Integrated International Workshop Criteria and fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:4652–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Cheson BD, Pfistner B, Juweid ME, et al. Revised response criteria for malignant lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:579–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Spaepen K, Stroobants S, Dupont P, et al. [(18)F]FDG PET monitoring of tumour response to chemotherapy: does [(18)F]FDG uptake correlate with the viable tumour cell fraction? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003;30:682–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Juweid ME, Stroobants S, Hoekstra OS, et al. Use of positron emission tomography for response assessment of lymphoma: consensus of the Imaging Subcommittee of International Harmonization Project in Lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:571–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Brepoels L, Stroobants S, De Wever W, et al. Hodgkin lymphoma: response assessment by revised International Workshop Criteria. Leuk Lymphoma 2007;48:1539–47.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Brepoels L, Stroobants S, De Wever W, et al. Aggressive and indolent non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: response assessment by integrated international workshop criteria. Leuk Lymphoma 2007;48:1522–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Lin C, Itti E, Haioun C, et al. Early 18F-FDG PET for prediction of prognosis in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: SUV-based assessment versus visual analysis. J Nucl Med 2007;48:1626–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Jerusalem G, Beguin Y, Fassotte MF, 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;14:123–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Levine JM, Weiner M, Kelly KM. Routine use of PET scans after completion of therapy in pediatric Hodgkin disease results in a high false positive rate. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 2006;28:711–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Radiology, Division of Nuclear MedicineMount Sinai Medical CenterNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations