Biopsy versus FDG PET/CT in the initial evaluation of bone marrow involvement in pediatric lymphoma patients

Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

The objective is to assess the role of 18F-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/CT versus bone marrow biopsy (BMB) in the initial evaluation of bone marrow (BM) involvement in pediatric lymphoma patients.

Methods

Fifty-four pediatric patients with pathologically proven lymphoma [31 Hodgkin’s disease (HD), 23 non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL)] were included in this study. All patients had soft tissue biopsy and BMB and had FDG PET/CT scans within 2 weeks of biopsy.

Results

Among the 31 HD patients, FDG PET/CT revealed positive BM involvement in 4 patients, while BMB revealed BM involvement in 2 patients who were also positive on FDG PET/CT imaging. Among the 23 NHL patients, FDG PET/CT revealed positive BM involvement in 8 patients, while biopsy revealed BM involvement in 5 patients on initial studies (4 of them were also positive on FDG PET/CT, and 1 was BMB positive but was negative on FDG PET/CT), plus 1 false-negative BMB study initially but positive on repeat biopsy after FDG PET/CT. The overall sensitivity of detecting BM involvement by lymphoma was 92 and 54% (p < 0.05) for FDG PET/CT and BMB, respectively. It is noted that there were more positive BMB findings in patients with abnormal FDG activities seen in the biopsy sites on PET/CT.

Conclusion

Our study demonstrates that FDG PET/CT has high sensitivity and accuracy and a substantial complementary value to BMB in the initial diagnosis of pediatric lymphoma, and should be employed as a first-line study.

Keywords

Lymphoma Pediatrics FDG PET/CT Bone marrow biopsy 

References

  1. 1.
    Wang J, Weiss LM, Chang KL, Slovak ML, Gaal K, Forman SJ, et al. Diagnostic utility of bilateral bone marrow examination: significance of morphologic and ancillary technique study in malignancy. Cancer 2002;94:1522–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kumar R, Maillard I, Schuster SJ, Alavi A. Utility of fluorodeoxyglucose-PET imaging in the management of patients with Hodgkin’s and non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas. Radiol Clin North Am 2004;42:1083–100.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cheng G, Servaes S, Alavi A, Zhuang H. FDG PET and PET/CT in the management of pediatric lymphoma patients. PET Clin 2008;3:621–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Paes FM, Kalkanis DG, Sideras PA, Serafini AN. FDG PET/CT of extranodal involvement in non-Hodgkin lymphoma and Hodgkin disease. Radiographics 2010;30:269–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Moog F, Bangerter M, Kotzerke J, Guhlmann A, Frickhofen N, Reske SN. 18-F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography as a new approach to detect lymphomatous bone marrow. J Clin Oncol 1998;16:603–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schaefer NG, Strobel K, Taverna C, Hany TF. Bone involvement in patients with lymphoma: the role of FDG-PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2007;34:60–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Muslimani AA, Farag HL, Francis S, Spiro TP, Chaudhry AA, Chan VC, et al. The utility of 18-F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in evaluation of bone marrow involvement by non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Am J Clin Oncol 2008;31:409–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fuster D, Chiang S, Andreadis C, Guan L, Zhuang H, Schuster S, et al. Can [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography imaging complement biopsy results from the iliac crest for the detection of bone marrow involvement in patients with malignant lymphoma? Nucl Med Commun 2006;27:11–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pelosi E, Pregno P, Penna D, Deandreis D, Chiappella A, Limerutti G, et al. Role of whole-body [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) and conventional techniques in the staging of patients with Hodgkin and aggressive non Hodgkin lymphoma. Radiol Med 2008;113:578–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ribrag V, Vanel D, Leboulleux S, Lumbroso J, Couanet D, Bonniaud G, et al. Prospective study of bone marrow infiltration in aggressive lymphoma by three independent methods: whole-body MRI, PET/CT and bone marrow biopsy. Eur J Radiol 2008;66:325–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pakos EE, Fotopoulos AD, Ioannidis JPA. 18F-FDG PET for evaluation of bone marrow infiltration in staging of lymphoma: a meta-analysis. J Nucl Med 2005;46:958–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pelosi E, Penna D, Deandreis D, Chiappella A, Skanjeti A, Vitolo U, et al. FDG-PET in the detection of bone marrow disease in Hodgkin’s disease and aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and its impact on clinical management. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2008;52:9–16.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Moulin-Romsee G, Hindié E, Cuenca X, Brice P, Decaudin D, Bénamor M, et al. (18)F-FDG PET/CT bone/bone marrow findings in Hodgkin’s lymphoma may circumvent the use of bone marrow trephine biopsy at diagnosis staging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010;37:1095–105.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Frable WJ. Fine-needle aspiration biopsy: a review. Hum Pathol 1983;14:9–28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Weiss CR, Nour SG, Lewin JS. MR-guided biopsy: a review of current techniques and applications. J Magn Reson Imaging 2008;27:311–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Arber DA, George TI. Bone marrow biopsy involvement by non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: frequency of lymphoma types, patterns, blood involvement, and discordance with other sites in 450 specimens. Am J Surg Pathol 2005;29:1549–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    EL Bolkainy TMN, Abo Deif WS, Gouda HM, Mokhtar NM. Evaluation of bone marrow in 143 lymphomas: the relative frequency and pattern of involvement, secondary myelopathies, pitfalls and diagnostic validity. J Egypt Natl Canc Inst 2008;20:17–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Levis A, Pietrasanta D, Godio L, Vitolo U, Ciravegna G, Di Vito F, et al. A large-scale study of bone marrow involvement in patients with Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Clin Lymphoma 2004;5:50–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Moid F, DePalma L. Comparison of relative value of bone marrow aspirates and bone marrow trephine biopsies in the diagnosis of solid tumor metastasis and Hodgkin lymphoma: institutional experience and literature review. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2005;129:497–501.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Döbert N, Menzel C, Berner U, Hamscho N, Wördehoff N, Mitrou P, et al. Positron emission tomography in patients with Hodgkin’s disease: correlation to histopathologic subtypes. Cancer Biother Radiopharm 2003;18:565–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Goethals I, Hoste P, De Vriendt C, Smeets P, Verlooy J, Ham H. Time-dependent changes in 18F-FDG activity in the thymus and bone marrow following combination chemotherapy in paediatric patients with lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010;37:462–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyHospital of the University of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Diagnostic Radiology and Nuclear MedicineUniversity of Maryland Medical CenterBaltimoreUSA
  3. 3.Children’s Hospital of PhiladelphiaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations