Interim FDG PET/CT as a prognostic factor in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma

  • Silvia Fuertes
  • Xavier Setoain
  • Armando Lopez-Guillermo
  • Josep-Lluis Carrasco
  • Sonia Rodríguez
  • Jordina Rovira
  • Francesca Pons
Original Article



Interim 18F-FDG PET performed early during the course of therapy in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is a good predictor of outcome. However, interpretation criteria for interim PET for the evaluation of tumour response are still not clearly defined. The study aim was to assess whether interim PET can predict overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in DLBCL patients following three different sets of parameters, two qualitative (visual) methods and one semiquantitative.


A total of 50 newly diagnosed DLBCL patients were prospectively enrolled in this study. All patients had a PET/CT scan at diagnosis and an interim PET/CT scan after the second or third cycle of chemotherapy. Three methods of evaluation for the interim PET/CT were used: a qualitative three-point scoring (3-PS) method, a qualitative 5-PS method and a semiquantitative method (ΔSUVmax). The degree of correlation between therapy response seen on FDG PET and PFS and OS was determined.


The analysis of the visual 3-PS method showed no statistically significant difference in PFS and OS. The estimated 5-year PFS and OS were 79 % and 92 %, respectively, in patients with an interim PET scan showing uptake not greater than in the liver versus 50 % in patients with uptake greater than in the liver, and this difference was statistically significant. The optimal cut-off value of ΔSUVmax that could predict the PFS and OS difference in patients with DLBCL was 76 % (95 % CI 62.7–89.2 %) and 75 % (95 % CI, 54.6–95.4 %), respectively.


Our results support the use of liver uptake as an indicator in the qualitative evaluation of interim PET, or a ΔSUVmax greater than 75 % in semiquantitative analysis. Interim PET may predict PFS and OS and could be considered in the prognostic evaluation of DLBCL.


Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma Interim PET 


Conflicts of interest



  1. 1.
    Lu P. Staging and classification of lymphoma. Semin Nucl Med. 2005;35:160–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Feugier P, Van Hoof A, Sebban C, Solal-Celigny P, Bouabdallah R, Fermé C, et al. Long-term results of the R-CHOP study in the treatment of elderly patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: a study by the Groupe d’Etude des Lymphomes de l’Adulte. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:4117–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Meignan M, Itti E, Gallamini A, Haioun C. Interim 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: qualitative or quantitative interpretation – where do we stand? Leuk Lymphoma. 2009;50:1753–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Meignan M, Gallamini A, Haioun C, Polliack A. Report on the Second International Workshop on interim positron emission tomography in lymphoma. Leuk Lymphoma. 2010;51:2171–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Spaepen K, Stroobants S, Dupont P, Vandenberghe P, Thomas J, de Groot T, 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
  6. 6.
    Cashen AF, Dehdashti F, Luo J, Homb A, Siegel BA, Barlett NL. 18F-FDG PET/CT for early response assessment in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: poor predictive value of International Harmonization Project interpretation. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:386–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mikhaeel NG, Hutchings M, Fields PA, O’Doherty MJ, Timothy AR. Prognostic value of interim FDG-PET after two or three cycles of chemotherapy in Hodgkin lymphoma. Ann Oncol. 2005;16:1160–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Juweid ME, Wiseman GA, Vose JM, Ritchie JM, Menda Y, Wooldridge JE, et al. 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
  9. 9.
    Cheson B. The case against heavy PETing. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:1742–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pregno P, Chiappella A, Bellò M, Botto B, Ferrero S, Franceschetti S, et al. Interim 18-FDG-PET/CT failed to predict the outcome in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients treated at the diagnosis with rituximab-CHOP. Blood. 2012;119:2066–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Moskowitz CH, Schöder H, Teruya-Feldstein J, Sima C, Iasonos A, Portlock CS, et al. Risk-adapted dose-dense immunochemotherapy determined by interim FDG-PET in advanced-stage diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:1896–903.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Meignan M, Gallamini A, Haioun C. Report on the First International Workshop on interim-PET scan in lymphoma. Leuk Lymphoma. 2009;50:1257–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Barrington SF, Qian W, Somer EJ, Franceschetto A, Bagni B, Brun E, et al. Concordance between four European centers of PET reporting criteria designed for use in multicenter trials in Hodgkin lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:1824–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Meignan M. Interim PET in lymphoma: a step towards standardization. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:1821–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Itti E, Lin C, Dupuis J, Paone G, Capacchione D, Rahmouni A, et al. Prognostic value of interim 18F-FDG PET in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: SUV-based assessment at 4 cycles of chemotherapy. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:527–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lin C, Itti E, Haioun C, Petegnief Y, Luciani A, Dupuis J, 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
  17. 17.
    Boellard R. Standards for PET image acquisition and quantitative data analysis. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:11S–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lee ET, Wang JW. Statistical methods for survival data analysis. New York: Wiley; 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Skaltsa K, Jover L, Carrasco JL. Estimation of the diagnostic threshold accounting for decision costs and sampling uncertainty. Biom J. 2010;52:676–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Haioun C, Itti E, Rahmouni A, Brice P, Rain JD, Belhadj K, 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
  21. 21.
    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
  22. 22.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dührsen U, Hüttmann A, Jöckel KH, Müller S. Positron emission tomography guided therapy of aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma – the PETAL trial. Leuk Lymphoma. 2009;50:1757–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Deok-Hwan Y, Byun Byung H,-Jung-Joon M, Jae-Sook A, Yeo-Kyeoung K, Hee-Seung B, et al. Interim PET/CT-based prognostic model for the treatment of diffuse large B cell lymphoma in post-rituximab era. 3rd International Workshop on interim PET in lymphoma. 26–27 September 2011, Menton. Abstract.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lanic H, Mareschal S, Mechken F, Picquenot JM, Bertrand P, Ruminy P, et al. Gene Expression profile and interim TEP scan are two complementary and independent tools to predict the outcome of DLBCL. 3rd International Workshop on interim PET in lymphoma. 26–27 September 2011, Menton. Abstract.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Silvia Fuertes
    • 1
  • Xavier Setoain
    • 1
  • Armando Lopez-Guillermo
    • 2
  • Josep-Lluis Carrasco
    • 3
  • Sonia Rodríguez
    • 4
  • Jordina Rovira
    • 2
  • Francesca Pons
    • 1
  1. 1.Nuclear Medicine DepartmentClinic University HospitalBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Department of Haematology and OncologyClinic University HospitalBarcelonaSpain
  3. 3.Statistics DepartmentBarcelona UniversityBarcelonaSpain
  4. 4.Radiology DepartmentClinic University HospitalBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations