Diagnostic and prognostic impact of 18F-FDG PET/CT in follicular lymphoma

  • Ludovic Le Dortz
  • Sophie De Guibert
  • Sahar Bayat
  • Anne Devillers
  • Roch Houot
  • Yan Rolland
  • Marc Cuggia
  • Florence Le Jeune
  • Haïfa Bahri
  • Marie-Luce Barge
  • Thierry Lamy
  • Etienne Garin
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to assess the usefulness of positron emission tomography/computed tomography in staging, prognosis evaluation and restaging of patients with follicular lymphoma.

Methods

A retrospective study was performed on 45 patients with untreated biopsy-proven follicular lymphoma who underwent 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT (FDG PET/CT) and CT before and after chemoimmunotherapy induction treatment (rituximab combined with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone).

Results

PET/CT detected more nodal (+51%) and extranodal (+89%) lesions than CT. PET/CT modified Ann Arbor staging in eight patients (18%). Five patients (11%) initially considered as being early stage (I/II) were eventually treated as advanced stage (III/IV). In this study, an initial PET/CT prognostic score was significantly more accurate than the Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index score in identifying patients with poor prognosis (i.e. patients with incomplete therapeutic response or early relapse). The accuracy of PET/CT for therapeutic response assessment was higher than that of CT (0.97 vs 0.64), especially due to its ability to identify inactive residual masses. In addition, post-treatment PET/CT was able to predict patients’ outcomes. The median progression-free survival was 48 months in the PET/CT-negative group as compared with 17.2 months for the group with residual uptake (p < 10−4).

Conclusion

FDG PET/CT is useful for staging and assessing the prognosis and therapeutic response of patients with follicular lymphoma.

Keywords

PET Follicular lymphoma Prognosis Therapeutic response 18F-FDG 

References

  1. 1.
    Freedman AS, Friedberg JW, Mauch PM, Dalla-Favera R, Harris NL, editors. Non-Hodgkin lymphomas. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2003. p. 367–88.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cheson BD, Pfistner B, Juweid ME, Gascoyne RD, Specht L, Horning SJ, et al. Revised response criteria for malignant lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:579–86.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Juweid ME, Stroobants S, Hoekstra OS, Mottaghy FM, Dietlein M, Guermazi A, 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wöhrer S, Jaeger U, Kletter K, Becherer A, Hauswirth A, Turetschek K, et al. 18F-fluorodeoxy-glucose positron emission tomography (18F-FDG-PET) visualizes follicular lymphoma irrespective of grading. Ann Oncol 2006;17:780–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jerusalem G, Beguin Y, Najjar F, Hustinx R, Fassotte MF, Rigo P, et al. Positron emission tomography (PET) with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) for the staging of low-grade non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL). Ann Oncol 2001;12:825–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Karam M, Novak L, Cyriac J, Ali A, Nazeer T, Nugent F. Role of fluorine-18 fluoro-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography scan in the evaluation and follow-up of patients with low-grade lymphomas. Cancer 2006;107:175–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wirth A, Foo M, Seymour JF, Macmanus MP, Hicks RJ. Impact of [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography on staging and management of early-stage follicular non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008;71:213–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Janikova A, Bolcak K, Pavlik T, Mayer J, Kral Z. Value of [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the management of follicular lymphoma: the end of a dilemma? Clin Lymphoma Myeloma 2008;8:287–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bishu S, Quigley JM, Bishu SR, Olsasky SM, Stem RA, Shostrom VK, et al. Predictive value and diagnostic accuracy of F-18-fluoro-deoxy-glucose positron emission tomography treated grade 1 and 2 follicular lymphoma. Leukemia Lymphoma 2007;48:1548–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Solal-Céligny P, Roy P, Colombat P, White J, Armitage JO, Arranz-Saez R, et al. Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index. Blood 2004;104:1258–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brice P, Bastion Y, Lepage E, Brousse N, Haïoun C, Moreau P, et al. Comparison in low-tumor-burden follicular lymphomas between an initial no-treatment policy, prednimustine, or interferon alfa: a randomized study from the Groupe d’Etude des Lymphomes Folliculaires. Groupe d’Etude des Lymphomes de l’Adulte. J Clin Oncol 1997;15:1110–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Solal-Céligny P, Lepage E, Brousse N, Tendler CL, Brice P, Haïoun C, et al. Doxorubicin-containing regimen with or without interferon alfa-2b for advanced follicular lymphomas: final analysis of survival and toxicity in the Groupe d’Etude des Lymphomes Folliculaires 86 Trial. J Clin Oncol 1998;16:2332–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cremerius U, Fabry U, Neuerburg J, Zinny M, Bares R, Osieka R, et al. Prognostic significance of positron emission tomography using fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose in patients treated for malignant lymphoma. Nuklearmedizin 2001;40:23–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zinzani PL, Musuraca G, Alinari L, Fanti S, Tani M, Stefoni V, et al. Predictive role of positron emission tomography in the outcome of patients with follicular lymphoma. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma 2007;7:291–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bachy E, Brice P, Delarue R, Brousse N, Haioun C, Le Gouill S, et al. Long-term follow-up of patients with newly diagnosed follicular lymphoma in the prerituximab era: effect of response quality on survival—a study from the Groupe d’Etude des Lymphomes de l’Adulte. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:822–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ludovic Le Dortz
    • 1
    • 2
  • Sophie De Guibert
    • 3
  • Sahar Bayat
    • 4
  • Anne Devillers
    • 1
  • Roch Houot
    • 3
  • Yan Rolland
    • 5
  • Marc Cuggia
    • 4
  • Florence Le Jeune
    • 1
  • Haïfa Bahri
    • 1
  • Marie-Luce Barge
    • 1
  • Thierry Lamy
    • 3
    • 6
  • Etienne Garin
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Nuclear Medicine DepartmentEugène Marquis Anticancer CentreRennesFrance
  2. 2.Inserm U991RennesFrance
  3. 3.Haematological DepartmentCHU PontchaillouRennesFrance
  4. 4.Medical Information DepartmentCHU PontchaillouRennesFrance
  5. 5.Medical Imaging DepartmentEugène Marquis Anticancer CentreRennesFrance
  6. 6.Inserm U917RennesFrance

Personalised recommendations