18F-FDG PET/CT in paediatric lymphoma: comparison with conventional imaging

  • Kevin London
  • Siobhan Cross
  • Ella Onikul
  • Luciano Dalla-Pozza
  • Robert Howman-Giles
Original Article



In children with Hodgkin’s disease and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, the ability of 18F-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose PET/CT and conventional imaging (CI) to detect malignant lesions and predict poor lesion response to therapy was assessed and compared.


A retrospective review of findings reported on PET/CT and CI was performed using a lesion-based analysis of 16 lymph node and 8 extra-nodal regions. Lesions were defined by histopathological findings or follow-up > 6 months.


The study included 209 PET/CT scans with a valid CI comparator. A total of 5,014 regions (3,342 lymph node, 1,672 extra-nodal) were analysed. PET/CT performed significantly better than CI in the detection of malignant lesions with sensitivity and specificity of 95.9 and 99.7% compared to 70.1 and 99.0%, respectively. For predicting poor lesion response to therapy, PET/CT had fewer false-positive lesions than CI. The specificity for predicting poor lesion response to treatment for PET/CT was 99.2% compared to 96.9% for CI. PET/CT was the correct modality in 86% of lesions with discordant findings.


PET/CT is more accurate than CI in detecting malignant lesions in childhood lymphoma and in predicting poor lesion response to treatment. In lesions with discordant findings, PET/CT results are more likely to be correct.


Paediatric lymphoma Sensitivity Specificity FDG PET/CT 



Kevin London was gratefully supported by The Cancer and Research Support Fund, Oncology Unit, The Children’s’ Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, Australia.

Conflicts of interest



  1. 1.
    Miller E, Metser U, Avrahami G, Dvir R, Valdman D, Sira LB, et al. Role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in staging and follow-up of lymphoma in pediatric and young adult patients. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2006;30(4):689–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kabickova E, Sumerauer D, Cumlivska E, Drahokoupilova E, Nekolna M, Chanova M, et al. Comparison of 18F-FDG-PET and standard procedures for the pretreatment staging of children and adolescents with Hodgkin’s disease. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2006;33(9):1025–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hermann S, Wormanns D, Pixberg M, Hunold A, Heindel W, Jürgens H, et al. Staging in childhood lymphoma: differences between FDG-PET and CT. Nuklearmedizin 2005;44(1):1–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hernandez-Pampaloni M, Takalkar A, Yu JQ, Zhuang H, Alavi A. F-18 FDG-PET imaging and correlation with CT in staging and follow-up of pediatric lymphomas. Pediatr Radiol 2006;36(6):524–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Depas G, De Barsy C, Jerusalem G, Hoyoux C, Dresse MF, Fassotte MF, et al. 18F-FDG PET in children with lymphomas. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2005;32(1):31–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Montravers F, McNamara D, Landman-Parker J, Grahek D, Kerrous K, Younsi N, et al. [(18)F]FDG in childhood lymphoma: clinical utility and impact on management. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2002;29(9):1155–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Meany HJ, Gidvani VK, Minniti CP. Utility of PET scans to predict disease relapse in pediatric patients with Hodgkin lymphoma. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2007;48(4):399–402.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lopci E, Burnelli R, Ambrosini V, Nanni C, Castellucci P, Biassoni L, et al. (18)F-FDG PET in pediatric lymphomas: a comparison with conventional imaging. Cancer Biother Radiopharm 2008;23(6):681–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Riad R, Omar W, Kolb M, Hafez M, Sidhorn I, Zamzam M, et al. Role of PET/CT in malignant pediatric lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010;37(2):319–29.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lord SJ, Irwig L, Simes RJ. When is measuring sensitivity and specificity sufficient to evaluate a diagnostic test, and when do we need randomized trials? Ann Intern Med 2006;144(11):850–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    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(5):571–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Friedman D, et al. AHOD0031: A phase III groupwide study of dose-intensive response-based chemotherapy and radiation therapy for children and adolescents with newly diagnosed intermediate risk Hodgkin disease. 2007, Children’s Oncology Group.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
  14. 14.
    Howman-Giles R, London K, McCowage G, Graf N, Harvey J. Pulmonary inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor after Hodgkin’s lymphoma and application of PET imaging. Pediatr Surg Int 2008;24(8):947–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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(9):1524–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Terasawa T, Nihashi T, Hotta T, Nagai H. 18F-FDG PET for posttherapy assessment of Hodgkin’s disease and aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: a systematic review. J Nucl Med 2008;49(1):13–21. Comment in J Nucl Med 2008;49:9–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zijlstra JM, Lindauer-van der Werf G, Hoekstra OS, Hooft L, Riphagen II, Huijgens PC. 18F-fluoro-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography for post-treatment evaluation of malignant lymphoma: a systematic review. Haematologica 2006;91(4):522–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Partridge S, Timothy A, O’Doherty MJ, Hain SF, Rankin S, Mikhaeel G. 2-Fluorine-18-fluoro-2-deoxy-D glucose positron emission tomography in the pretreatment staging of Hodgkin’s disease: influence on patient management in a single institution. Ann Oncol 2000;11(10):1273–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Talbot JN, Haioun C, Rain JD, Meignan M, Wioland M, Misset JL, et al. [18F]-FDG positron imaging in clinical management of lymphoma patients. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2001;38(3):193–221.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Weihrauch MR, Re D, Bischoff S, Dietlein M, Scheidhauer K, Krug B, et al. Whole-body positron emission tomography using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose for initial staging of patients with Hodgkin’s disease. Ann Hematol 2002;81(1):20–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Buchmann I, Reinhardt M, Elsner K, Bunjes D, Altehoefer C, Finke J, et al. 2-(fluorine-18)fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography in the detection and staging of malignant lymphoma. A bicenter trial. Cancer 2001;91(5):889–99.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bangerter M, Moog F, Buchmann I, Kotzerke J, Griesshammer M, Hafner M, et al. Whole-body 2-[18F]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) for accurate staging of Hodgkin’s disease. Ann Oncol 1998;9(10):1117–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wegner EA, Barrington SF, Kingston JE, Robinson RO, Ferner RE, Taj M, et al. The impact of PET scanning on management of paediatric oncology patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2005;32(1):23–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM, et al. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. Clin Radiol 2003;58(8):575–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kevin London
    • 1
  • Siobhan Cross
    • 2
  • Ella Onikul
    • 3
  • Luciano Dalla-Pozza
    • 2
  • Robert Howman-Giles
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Nuclear MedicineThe Children’s Hospital at WestmeadSydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Oncology UnitThe Children’s Hospital at WestmeadSydneyAustralia
  3. 3.Department of Medical ImagingThe Children’s Hospital at WestmeadSydneyAustralia
  4. 4.Discipline of Imaging, Sydney Medical SchoolUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations