Advertisement

Current role of FDG PET/CT in lymphoma

  • Lale KostakogluEmail author
  • Bruce D. Cheson
Review Article

Abstract

The management approach in Hodgkin’s (HL) and high-grade non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas (NHL) has shifted towards reducing the toxicity and long-term adverse effects associated with treatment while maintaining favorable outcomes in low-risk patients. The success of an individualized treatment strategy depends largely on accurate diagnostic tests both at staging and during therapy. In this regard, positron emission tomography (PET) using fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) with computed tomography (CT) has proved effective as a metabolic imaging tool with compelling evidence supporting its superiority over conventional modalities, particularly in staging and early evaluation of response. Eventually, this modality was integrated into the routine staging and restaging algorithm of lymphomas. This review will summarize the data on the proven and potential utility of PET/CT imaging for staging, response assessment, and restaging, describing current limitations of this imaging modality.

Keywords

FDG PET/CT Lymphoma Staging Early response evaluation PET-adapted clinical trials 

Notes

Conflicts of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Cheson BD, Pfistner B, Juweid ME, et al. Revised response criteria for malignant lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:579–86.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    National Comprehensive Cancer Network 2013, http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/f_guidelines.asp.
  3. 3.
    Peters MV. A study of survivals in Hodgkin’s disease treated radiologically. Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther. 1950;63:299–311.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rosenberg SA. Report of the Committee on the Staging of Hodgkin’s Disease. Cancer Res. 1966;26:1310.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rosenberg SA, Boiron M, DeVita Jr VT, et al. Report of the Committee on Hodgkin’s Disease Staging Procedures. Cancer Res. 1971;31:1862–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lister TA, Crowther D, Sutcliffe SB, et al. Report of a committee convened to discuss the evaluation and staging of patients with Hodgkin’s disease: Cotswolds meeting. J Clin Oncol. 1989;7:1630–6. Erratum in J Clin Oncol 1990;8:1602.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cheson BD, Horning SJ, Coiffier B, et al. Report of an international workshop to standardize response criteria for non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas. NCI Sponsored International Working Group. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:1244. Erratum in J Clin Oncol. 2000;18:2351.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brepoels L, Stroobants S, De Wever W, et al. Hodgkin lymphoma: response assessment by revised International Workshop Criteria. Leuk Lymphoma. 2007;48(8):1539–47.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cheson BD, Fisher RI, BarrIngton S, Zucca E, Cavalli F, Lister, TA. Follow-up of the 11-ICML workshop on lymphoma staging and restaging in the PET era (abstract 128). Haematol Oncol. 2013;31(Suppl 1):139.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Noordijk EM, Carde P, Dupouy N, et al. Combined-modality therapy for clinical stage I or II Hodgkin’s lymphoma: long-term results of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer H7 randomized controlled trials. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:3128–35.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Borchmann P, Diehl V, Goergen H, et al. Combined modality treatment with intensified chemotherapy and dose-reduced involved field radiotherapy in patients with early unfavourable Hodgkin lymphoma (HL): final analysis of the German Hodgkin Study Group (GHSG) HD11 Trial. ASH Annual Meeting Abstracts; 2009; New Orleans.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Engert A, Plütschow A, Eich HT, et al. Reduced treatment intensity in patients with early-stage Hodgkin’s lymphoma. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(7):640–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hasenclever D, Diehl V. A prognostic score for advanced Hodgkin’s disease. International Prognostic Factors Project on Advanced Hodgkin's Disease. N Engl J Med. 1998;339:1506–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shipp M, Mauch PM, Harris NL. Non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas. In: Devita VT, Hellman S, Rosenberg SA, editors. Cancer principles and practice of oncology. Philadelphia: Lippincott; 1997. p. 2165–220.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Solal-Céligny P, Roy P, Colombat P, et al. Follicular lymphoma international prognostic index. Blood. 2004;104:1258–65.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Federico M, Molica S, Bellei M, Luminari S. Prognostic factors in low-grade non-Hodgkin lymphomas. Curr Hematol Malig Rep. 2009;4:202–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hoster E, Dreyling M, Klapper W, et al. A new prognostic index (MIPI) for patients with advanced-stage mantle cell lymphoma. Blood. 2008;111(2):558–65.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Went P, Agostinelli C, Gallamini A, et al. Marker expression in peripheral T-cell lymphoma: a proposed clinical-pathologic prognostic score. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:2472–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gallamini A, Stelitano C, Calvi R, et al. Peripheral T-cell lymphoma unspecified (PTCL-U): a new prognostic model from a retrospective multicentric clinical study. Blood. 2004;103:2474–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Isasi CR, Lu P, Blaufox MD. A metaanalysis of 18F-2-deoxy-2-fluoro-D-glucose positron emission tomography in the staging and restaging of patients with lymphoma. Cancer. 2005;104:1066–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Buchmann I, Reinhardt M, Elsner K, 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;91:889–99.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Naumann R, Beuthien-Baumann B, Reiss A, Schulze J, Hänel A, Bredow J, et al. Substantial impact of FDG-PET imaging on the therapy decision in patients with early-stage Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Br J Cancer. 2004;90:620–5.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Moog F, Bangerter M, Diederichs CG, Guhlmann A, Merkle E, Frickhofen N, et al. Extranodal malignant lymphoma: detection with FDG PET versus CT. Radiology. 1998;206:475–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hutchings M, Loft A, Hansen M, et al. Position emission tomography with or without computed tomography in the primary staging of Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Haematologica. 2006;91:482–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schaefer NG, Hany TF, Taverna C, Seifert B, Stumpe KD, von Schulthess GK, et al. Non-Hodgkin lymphoma and Hodgkin disease: coregistered FDG PET and CT at staging and restaging–do we need contrast-enhanced CT? Radiology. 2004;232:823–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bakhshi S, Radhakrishnan V, Sharma P, et al. Pediatric nonlymphoblastic non-Hodgkin lymphoma: baseline, interim, and posttreatment PET/CT versus contrast-enhanced CT for evaluation–a prospective study. Radiology. 2012;262:956–68.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bangerter M, Moog F, Buchmann I, 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;9:1117–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jerusalem G, Beguin Y, Fassotte MF, et al. Whole-body positron emission tomography using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose compared to standard procedures for staging patients with Hodgkin’s disease. Haematologica. 2001;86:266–73.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Weihrauch MR, Re D, Bischoff S, et al. Whole-body positron emission tomography using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose for initial staging of patients with Hodgkin’s disease. Ann Hematol. 2002;81:20–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Picardi M, Soricelli A, Grimaldi F, Nicolai E, Gallamini A, Pane F. Fused FDG-PET/contrast-enhanced CT detects occult subdiaphragmatic involvement of Hodgkin’s lymphoma thereby identifying patients requiring six cycles of anthracycline-containing chemotherapy and consolidation radiation of spleen. Ann Oncol. 2011;22:671–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Carr R, Barrington SF, Madan B, et al. Detection of lymphoma in bone marrow by whole-body positron emission tomography. Blood. 1998;91:3340–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tatsumi M, Cohade C, Nakamoto Y, et al. Direct comparison of FDG PET and CT findings in patients with lymphoma: initial experience. Radiology. 2005;237:1038–45.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kwee TC, Kwee RM, Nievelstein RA. Imaging in staging of malignant lymphoma: a systematic review. Blood. 2008;111:504–16.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Partridge S, Timothy A, O’Doherty MJ, et al. 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;11:1273–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Pelosi E, Pregno P, Penna D, 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rigacci L, Vitolo U, Nassi L, et al. Positron emission tomography in the staging of patients with Hodgkin’s lymphoma. A prospective multicentric study by the Intergruppo Italiano Linfomi. Ann Hematol. 2007;86:897–903.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wirth A, Seymour JF, Hicks RJ, et al. Fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography, gallium-67 scintigraphy, and conventional staging for Hodgkin’s disease and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Am J Med. 2002;112:262–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Munker R, Glass J, Griffeth LK, et al. Contribution of PET imaging to the initial staging and prognosis of patients with Hodgkin’s disease. Ann Oncol. 2004;15:1699–704.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Raanani P, Shasha Y, Perry C, et al. Is CT scan still necessary for staging in Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients in the PET/CT era? Ann Oncol. 2006;17:117–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Rodríguez-Vigil B, Gómez-León N, Pinilla I, et al. PET/CT in lymphoma: prospective study of enhanced full-dose PET/CT versus unenhanced low-dose PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2006;47:1643–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Brix G, Lechel U, Glatting G, et al. Radiation exposure of patients undergoing whole-body dual-modality 18F-FDG PET/CT examinations. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:608–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Elstrom RL, Leonard JP, Coleman M, et al. Combined PET and low-dose, noncontrast CT scanning obviates the need for additional diagnostic contrast-enhanced CT scans in patients undergoing staging or restaging for lymphoma. Ann Oncol. 2008;19:1770–3.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Pinilla I, Gómez-León N, Del Campo-Del Val L, et al. Diagnostic value of CT, PET and combined PET/CT performed with low-dose unenhanced CT and full-dose enhanced CT in the initial staging of lymphoma. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;55:567–75.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Gollub MJ, Hong R, Sarasohn DM, Akhurst T. Limitations of CT during PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:1583–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ouvrier MJ, Diologent B, Edet-Sanson A, et al. Influence of PET/CT on radiologists and contrast-enhanced CT on nuclear medicine physicians in patients with lymphoma. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;55:324–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Elstrom R, Guan L, Baker G, et al. Utility of FDG-PET scanning in lymphoma by WHO classification. Blood. 2003;101:3875–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Wöhrer S, Jaeger U, Kletter K, et al. 18F-fluoro-deoxy-glucose positron emission tomography (18F-FDG-PET) visualizes follicular lymphoma irrespective of grading. Ann Oncol. 2006;17:780–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Tan D, Horning SJ. Follicular lymphoma: clinical features and treatment. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am. 2008;22:863–82. viii.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Beal KP, Yeung HW, Yahalom J. FDG-PET scanning for detection and staging of extranodal marginal zone lymphomas of the MALT type: a report of 42 cases. Ann Oncol. 2005;16:473–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Hoffmann M, Wöhrer S, Becherer A, et al. 18F-fluoro-deoxy-glucose positron emission tomography in lymphoma of mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue: histology makes the difference. Ann Oncol. 2006;17:1761–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Ansquer C, Hervouët T, Devillers A, et al. 18-F FDG-PET in the staging of lymphocyte-predominant Hodgkin’s disease. Haematologica. 2008;93:128–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Hutchings M, Loft A, Hansen M, et al. Clinical impact of FDG-PET/CT in the planning of radiotherapy for early-stage Hodgkin lymphoma. Eur J Haematol. 2007;78:206–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Girinsky T, Ghalibafian M, Bonniaud G, et al. Is FDG-PET scan in patients with early stage Hodgkin lymphoma of any value in the implementation of the involved-node radiotherapy concept and dose painting? Radiother Oncol. 2007;85:178–86.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Thorwarth D, Beyer T, Boellaard R, et al. Integration of FDG-PET/CT into external beam radiation therapy planning: technical aspects and recommendations on methodological approaches. Nuklearmedizin. 2012;51:140–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Vera P, Modzelewski R, Hapdey S, et al. Does enhanced CT influence the biological GTV measurement on FDG-PET images? Radiother Oncol. 2013;108:86–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Friedberg JW, Mauch PM, Rimsza LM, Fisher RI. Non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas. In: DeVita VT, Lawrence TS, Rosenberg SA, editors. DeVita, Hellman, and Rosenberg’s cancer: principles and practice of oncology. 8th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008. p. 2098–166.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Hutchings M. The role of bone marrow biopsy in Hodgkin lymphoma staging: “to be, or not to be, that is the question”? Leuk Lymphoma. 2012;53:523–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    El-Galaly TC, d’Amore F, Mylam KJ, et al. Routine bone marrow biopsy has little or no therapeutic consequence for positron emission tomography/computed tomography-staged treatment-naive patients with Hodgkin lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:4508–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Chung R, Chung R, Lai R, Wei P, et al. Concordant but not discordant bone marrow involvement in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma predicts a poor clinical outcome independent of the International Prognostic Index. Blood. 2007;110:1278–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Campbell J, Seymour JF, Matthews J, et al. The prognostic impact of bone marrow involvement in patients with diffuse large cell lymphoma varies according to the degree of infiltration and presence of discordant marrow involvement. Eur J Haematol. 2006;76:473–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Alavi A, Shrikanthan S, Aydin A, Talanow R, Schuster S. Fluorodeoxyglucose-positron-emission tomography findings in mantle cell lymphoma. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2011;11:261–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Brepoels L, Stroobants S, De Wever W, Dierickx D, Vandenberghe P, Thomas J, et al. Positron emission tomography in mantle cell lymphoma. Leuk Lymphoma. 2008;49:1693–701.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Wang J, Weiss LM, Chang KL, et al. Diagnostic utility of bilateral bone marrow examination: significance of morphologic and ancillary technique study in malignancy. Cancer. 2002;94:1522–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Pelosi E, Penna D, Douroukas A, et al. Bone marrow disease detection with FDG-PET/CT and bone marrow biopsy during the staging of malignant lymphoma: results from a large multicentre study. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;55:469–75.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Muzahir S, Mian M, Munir I, et al. Clinical utility of 18F FDG-PET/CT in the detection of bone marrow disease in Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Br J Radiol. 2012;85:e490–6.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Moulin-Romsee G, Hindié E, Cuenca X, 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Ngeow JY, Quek RH, Ng DC, et al. High SUV uptake on FDG-PET/CT predicts for an aggressive B-cell lymphoma in a prospective study of primary FDG-PET/CT staging in lymphoma. Ann Oncol. 2009;20:1543–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Mittal BR, Manohar K, Malhotra P, et al. Can fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography avoid negative iliac crest biopsies in evaluation of marrow involvement by lymphoma at time of initial staging? Leuk Lymphoma. 2011;52:2111–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Khan AB, Barrington SF, Mikhaeel NG, et al. PET-CT staging of DLBCL accurately identifies and provides new insight into the clinical significance of bone marrow involvement. Blood. 2013;122:61–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Muslimani AA, Farag HL, Francis S, 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Hong J, Lee Y, Park Y, et al. Role of FDG-PET/CT in detecting lymphomatous bone marrow involvement in patients with newly diagnosed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Ann Hematol. 2012;91:687–95.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Pakos EE, Fotopoulos AD, Ioannidis JP. 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
  74. 74.
    Cerci JJ, Pracchia LF, Linardi CC, et al. 18F-FDG PET after 2 cycles of ABVD predicts event-free survival in early and advanced Hodgkin lymphoma. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:1337–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Wu LM, Chen FY, Jiang XX, Gu HY, Yin Y, Xu JR. (18)F-FDG PET, combined FDG-PET/CT and MRI for evaluation of bone marrow infiltration in staging of lymphoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81:303–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Chen YK, Yeh CL, Tsui CC, et al. F-18 FDG PET for evaluation of bone marrow involvement in non-Hodgkin lymphoma: a meta-analysis. Clin Nucl Med. 2011;36:553–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Núñez R, Rini JN, Tronco GG, et al. Correlation of hematologic parameters with bone marrow and spleen uptake in FDG PET. Rev Esp Med Nucl. 2005;24:107–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Salaun PY, Gastinne T, Bodet-Milin C, et al. Analysis of 18F-FDG PET diffuse bone marrow uptake and splenic uptake in staging of Hodgkin’s lymphoma: a reflection of disease infiltration or just inflammation? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;36:1813–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Richardson SE, Sudak J, Warbey V, Ramsay A, McNamara CJ. Routine bone marrow biopsy is not necessary in the staging of patients with classical Hodgkin lymphoma in the 18F-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography era. Leuk Lymphoma. 2012;53:381–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Paone G, Itti E, Haioun C, Gaulard P, Dupuis J, Lin C, et al. Bone marrow involvement in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: correlation between FDG-PET uptake and type of cellular infiltrate. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;36:745–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Ghesquières H, Berger F, Felman P, et al. Clinicopathologic characteristics and outcome of diffuse large B-cell lymphomas presenting with an associated low-grade component at diagnosis. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:5234–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Gospodarowicz MK, Ferry JA, Cavalli F. Unique aspects of primary extranodal lymphomas. In: Mauch PM, Armitage JO, Coiffier B, Dalla-Favera R, Harris NL, editors. Non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2004. p. 685–707.Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Gorg C, Weide R, Schwerk WB. Malignant splenic lymphoma: sonographic patterns, diagnosis and follow-up. Clin Radiol. 1997;52:535–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Maza S, Buchert R, Brenner W, Munz DL, Thiel E, Korfel A, et al. Brain and whole-body FDG-PET in diagnosis, treatment monitoring and long-term follow-up of primary CNS lymphoma. Radiol Oncol. 2013;47:103–10.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Mohile NA, Deangelis LM, Abrey LE. The utility of body FDG PET in staging primary central nervous system lymphoma. Neuro Oncol. 2008;10(2):223–8.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Westwood TD, Hogan C, Julyan PJ, Coutts G, Bonington S, Carrington B, et al. Utility of FDG-PETCT and magnetic resonance spectroscopy in differentiating between cerebral lymphoma and non-malignant CNS lesions in HIV-infected patients. Eur J Radiol. 2013;82:e374–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Le Roux PY, Gastinne T, Le Gouill S, et al. Prognostic value of interim FDG PET/CT in Hodgkin’s lymphoma patients treated with interim response-adapted strategy: comparison of International Harmonization Project (IHP), Gallamini and London criteria. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:1064–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Han HS, Escalón MP, Hsiao B, Serafini A, Lossos IS. High incidence of false-positive PET scans in patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma treated with rituximab-containing regimens. Ann Oncol. 2009;20:309–18.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Steidl C, Connors JM, Gascoyne RD. Molecular pathogenesis of Hodgkin’s lymphoma: increasing evidence of the importance of the microenvironment. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:1812–26.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Liu Y, Sattarzadeh A, Diepstra A, Visser L, van den Berg A. The microenvironment in classical Hodgkin lymphoma: an actively shaped and essential tumor component. Semin Cancer Biol. 2013. doi:10.1016/j.semcancer.2013.07.002.Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Meignan M, Gallamini A, Haioun C, et al. Report on the First International Workshop on Interim-PET-Scan in Lymphoma. Leuk Lymphoma. 2009;50:1257–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Casasnovas RO, Meignan M, Berriolo-Riedinger A, et al. SUVmax reduction improves early prognosis value of interim positron emission tomography scans in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Blood. 2011;118:37–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Itti E, Juweid ME, Haioun C, et al. Improvement of early 18F-FDG PET interpretation in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: importance of the reference background. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:1857–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Barrington SF, Qian W, Somer E, et al. Concordance between four European centres of PET reporting criteria designed for use in multicentre trials in Hodgkin lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:1824–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Meignan M, Gallamini A, Haioun C, Polliack A. Report on the Second International Workshop on interim positron emission tomography in lymphoma held in Menton, France, 8–9 April 2010. Leuk Lymphoma. 2010;51:2171–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Biggi A, Gallamini A, Chauvie S, et al. International validation study for interim PET in ABVD-treated, advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma: interpretation criteria and concordance rate among reviewers. J Nucl Med. 2013;54:683–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Itti E, Meignan M, Berriolo-Riedinger A, et al. An international confirmatory study of the prognostic value of early PET/CT in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: comparison between Deauville criteria and ΔSUVmax. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:1312–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Moskowitz CH, Schöder H, Teruya-Feldstein J, 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.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Pregno P, Chiappella A, Bellò M, 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Itti E, Lin C, Dupuis J, 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Kostakoglu L, Schöder H, Johnson JL, et al. Interim [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography imaging in stage I-II non-bulky Hodgkin lymphoma: would using combined positron emission tomography and computed tomography criteria better predict response than each test alone? Leuk Lymphoma. 2012;53:2143–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Hatt M, Visvikis D, Albarghach NM, et al. Prognostic value of 18F-FDG PET image-based parameters in oesophageal cancer and impact of tumour delineation methodology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:1191–202.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Werner-Wasik M, Nelson AD, Choi W, et al. What is the best way to contour lung tumors on PET scans? Multiobserver validation of a gradient-based method using a NSCLC digital PET phantom. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;82:1164–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Bagci U, Yao J, Miller-Jaster K, Chen X, Mollura DJ. Predicting future morphological changes of lesions from radiotracer uptake in 18F-FDG-PET images. PLoS One. 2013;8(2):e57105.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Larson SM, Erdi Y, Akhurst T, et al. Tumor treatment response based on visual and quantitative changes in global tumor glycolysis using PET-FDG imaging. The visual response score and the change in total lesion glycolysis. Clin Positron Imaging. 1999;2:159–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Kostakoglu L, Gandikota N, Hutching M, et al. Deauville criteria and post-one cycle SUVmax decrease seems to predict progression free survival better than metabolic tumor measurements in classical Hodgkin’s lymphoma (abstract). Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39(Suppl):S155.Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Tseng D, Rachakonda LP, Su Z, et al. Interim-treatment quantitative PET parameters predict progression and death among patients with Hodgkin’s disease. Radiat Oncol. 2012;7:5.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Song MK, Chung JS, Shin HJ, et al. Clinical significance of metabolic tumor volume by PET/CT in stages II and III of diffuse large B cell lymphoma without extranodal site involvement. Ann Hematol. 2012;91:697–703.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Song MK, Chung JS, Shin HJ, et al. Prognostic value of metabolic tumor volume by PET/CT in primary gastrointestinal diffuse large B cell lymphoma. Cancer Sci. 2012;103:477–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Fermé C, Eghbali H, Meerwaldt JH, et al. Chemotherapy plus involved-field radiation in early-stage Hodgkin’s disease. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:1916–27.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Favier O, Heutte N, Stamatoullas-Bastard A, et al. Survival after Hodgkin lymphoma: causes of death and excess mortality in patients treated in 8 consecutive trials. Cancer. 2009;115:1680–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Friedberg JW, Fischman A, Neuberg D, et al. FDG-PET is superior to gallium scintigraphy in staging and more sensitive in the follow-up of patients with de novo Hodgkin lymphoma: a blinded comparison. Leuk Lymphoma. 2004;45:85–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    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
  116. 116.
    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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Markova J, Kahraman D, Kobe C, et al. Role of [18F]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography in early and late therapy assessment of patients with advanced Hodgkin lymphoma treated with bleomycin, etoposide, adriamycin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine and prednisone. Leuk Lymphoma. 2012;53:64–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Kostakoglu L, Goldsmith SJ, Leonard JP, Christos P, Furman RR, Atasever T, 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Sher DJ, Mauch PM, Van Den Abbeele A, LaCasce AS, Czerminski J, Ng AK. Prognostic significance of mid- and post-ABVD PET imaging in Hodgkin’s lymphoma: the importance of involved-field radiotherapy. Ann Oncol. 2009;20:1848–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Barnes JA, LaCasce AS, Zukotynski K, Israel D, Feng Y, Neuberg D, et al. End-of-treatment but not interim PET scan predicts outcome in nonbulky limited-stage Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Ann Oncol. 2011;22:910–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Zinzani PL, Rigacci L, Stefoni V, et al. Early interim 18F-FDG PET in Hodgkin’s lymphoma: evaluation on 304 patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39:4–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    Filippi AR, Botticella A, Bellò M, Botto B, Castiglione A, Gavarotti P, et al. Interim positron emission tomography and clinical outcome in patients with early stage Hodgkin lymphoma treated with combined modality therapy. Leuk Lymphoma. 2013;54:1183–7. doi:  10.3109/10428194.2012.735667.Google Scholar
  126. 126.
    Dann EJ, Blumenfeld Z, Bar-Shalom R, et al. A 10-year experience with treatment of high and standard risk Hodgkin disease: six cycles of tailored BEACOPP, with interim scintigraphy, are effective and female fertility is preserved. Am J Hematol. 2012;87:32–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    Avigdor A, Bulvik S, Levi I, et al. Two cycles of escalated BEACOPP followed by four cycles of ABVD utilizing early-interim PET/CT scan is an effective regimen for advanced high-risk Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Ann Oncol. 2010;21:126–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  128. 128.
    Straus DJ, Johnson JL, LaCasce AS, et al. Doxorubicin, vinblastine, and gemcitabine (CALGB 50203) for stage I/II nonbulky Hodgkin lymphoma: pretreatment prognostic factors and interim PET. Blood. 2011;117:5314–20.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  129. 129.
    54–133 ClinicalTrials.gov. Tailored therapy for Hodgkin lymphoma using early interim therapy PET for therapy decision. Available via http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00392314.
  130. 130.
    48–134 ClinicalTrials.gov. Fludeoxyglucose F 18 PET scan-guided therapy or standard therapy in treating patients with previously untreated stage I or II Hodgkin’s lymphoma (EORTC/GELA). Available via http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00433433.
  131. 131.
    51–135 ClinicalTrials.gov. Response-based therapy assessed by PET scan in treating patients with bulky stage I and stage II classical Hodgkin lymphoma (CALGB 50801). Available via http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01118026.
  132. 132.
    52–136 ClinicalTrials.gov. Chemotherapy based on PET scan in treating patients with stage I or stage II Hodgkin lymphoma (ECOG). Available via http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01390584.
  133. 133.
    53–137 ClinicalTrials.gov. Chemotherapy based on positron emission tomography scan in treating patients with stage I or stage II Hodgkin lymphoma (CALGB 50604). Available via http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01132807.
  134. 134.
    50–138 ClinicalTrials.gov. PET scan in planning treatment in patients undergoing combination chemotherapy for stage IA or stage IIA Hodgkin lymphoma. Available via http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00943423.
  135. 135.
    49–139 ClinicalTrials.gov. HD16 for early stage Hodgkin lymphoma. Available via http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00736320.
  136. 136.
    61–140 ClinicalTrials.gov. HD17 for intermediate stage Hodgkin lymphoma. Available via http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01356680.
  137. 137.
    57–141 ClinicalTrials.gov. Positron emission tomography (PET)-adapted chemotherapy in advanced Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) (HD0607). Available via http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00795613.
  138. 138.
    59–142 ClinicalTrials.gov. Fludeoxyglucose F 18-PET/CT imaging and combination chemotherapy with or without additional chemotherapy and G-CSF in treating patients with stage III or stage IV Hodgkin lymphoma (SWOG-CALG-B). Available via http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00822120.
  139. 139.
    55–143 ClinicalTrials.gov. Study of a treatment driven by early PET response to a treatment not monitored by early PET in patients with AA stage 3–4 or 2B HL (AHL 2011). Available via http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01358747.
  140. 140.
    58–144 ClinicalTrials.gov. Fludeoxyglucose F 18-PET/CT imaging in assessing response to chemotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed stage II, stage III, or stage IV Hodgkin lymphoma (RATHL). Available via http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00678327.
  141. 141.
    56–145 ClinicalTrials.gov. HD18 for advanced stages in Hodgkins lymphoma. Available via http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00515554.
  142. 142.
    60–146 ClinicalTrials.gov. High-dose chemotherapy and stem cell transplantation, in patients PET-2 positive, after 2 courses of ABVD (HD0801) and comparison of RT versus no RT in PET-2 negative patients (HD0802). Available via http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00784537.
  143. 143.
    André MPE, Reman O, Federico M, Brice P, Brusamolino E, Girinski T, et al. First report on the H10 randomized intergroup trial on early FDG-PET scan guided treatment adaptation versus standard combined modality treatment in patients with supra-diaphragmatic stage I/II Hodgkin’s lymphoma, for GELA, EORTC and IIL (abstract). Blood. 2009;114:97.Google Scholar
  144. 144.
    Radford J, Barrington S, Counsell N, et al. Involved field radiotherapy vs no further treatment in patients with clinical stages IA and IIA Hodgkin lymphoma and a ‘negative’ PET scan after 3 cycles ABVD: results of the UK NCRI RAPID trial (ASH abstract 547). Blood. 2012;120.Google Scholar
  145. 145.
    Engert A, Diehl V, Franklin J, Lohri A, Dörken B, Ludwig WB, et al. Escalated-dose BEACOPP in the treatment of patients with advanced-stage Hodgkin’s lymphoma: 10 years of follow-up of the GHSG HD9 study. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:4548–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  146. 146.
    Federico M, Luminari S, Iannitto E, et al. ABVD compared with BEACOPP compared with CEC for the initial treatment of patients with advanced Hodgkin’s lymphoma: results from the HD2000 Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio dei Linfomi Trial. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:805–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  147. 147.
    Terasawa T, Lau J, Bardet S, et al. Fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography for interim response assessment of advanced-stage Hodgkin’s lymphoma and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: a systematic review. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:1906–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  148. 148.
    Gallamini A, Patti C, Viviani S, et al. Early chemotherapy intensification with BEACOPP in advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma patients with interim-PET positive after two ABVD courses. Br J Haematol. 2011;152:551–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  149. 149.
    Press O, Li H, Schöder H, et al. Response-adapted therapy of stage iii-iv Hodgkin lymphoma based on interim FDG-PET imaging: early results of US Intergroup S0816 (abstract T108). Haematologica. 2013;98(S2).Google Scholar
  150. 150.
    Spaepen K, Stroobants S, Dupont P, et al. Prognostic value of positron emission tomography (PET) with fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose ([18F]FDG) after first-line chemotherapy in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: is [18F]FDG-PET a valid alternative to conventional diagnostic methods? J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:414–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  151. 151.
    Juweid ME, Wiseman GA, Vose JM, 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  152. 152.
    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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  153. 153.
    Jerusalem G, Beguin Y, Fassotte MF, et al. Whole-body positron emission tomography using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose for posttreatment evaluation in Hodgkin’s disease and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma has higher diagnostic and prognostic value than classical computed tomography scan imaging. Blood. 1999;94(2):429–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  154. 154.
    Mikhaeel NG, Timothy AR, O’Doherty MJ, et al. 18-FDG-PET as a prognostic indicator in the treatment of aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma-comparison with CT. Leuk Lymphoma. 2000;39(5–6):543–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  155. 155.
    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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  156. 156.
    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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  157. 157.
    Querellou S, Valette F, Bodet-Milin C, et al. FDG-PET/CT predicts outcome in patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and Hodgkin’s disease. Ann Hematol. 2006;85(11):759–67.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  158. 158.
    Dupuis J, Itti E, Rahmouni A, et al. Response assessment after an inductive CHOP or CHOP-like regimen with or without rituximab in 103 patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: integrating 18fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography to the International Workshop Criteria. Ann Oncol. 2009;20:503–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  159. 159.
    Zinzani PL, Gandolfi L, Broccoli A, Argnani L, Fanti S, Pellegrini C, et al. Midtreatment 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission tomography in aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Cancer. 2011;117:1010–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  160. 160.
    Safar V, Dupuis J, Itti E, et al. Interim [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography scan in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma treated with anthracycline-based chemotherapy plus rituximab. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:184–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  161. 161.
    Micallef IN, Maurer MJ, Wiseman GA, et al. Epratuzumab with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone chemotherapy in patients with previously untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Blood. 2011;118(15):4053–61.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  162. 162.
    Cashen AF, Dehdashti F, Luo J, Homb A, Siegel BA, Bartlett 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  163. 163.
    ClinicalTrials.gov. A study of two associations of rituximab and chemotherapy, with a PET-driven strategy, in lymphoma (LNH2007-3B). Available via http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00498043.
  164. 164.
    Kasamon YL, Wahl RL, Ziessman HA, et al. Phase II study of risk-adapted therapy of newly diagnosed, aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma based on midtreatment FDG-PET scanning. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2009;15:242–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  165. 165.
    ClinicalTrials.gov. Positron emission tomography guided therapy of aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas (PETAL). Available via http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00554164.
  166. 166.
    Solal-Céligny P, Cahu X, Cartron G. Follicular lymphoma prognostic factors in the modern era: what is clinically meaningful? Int J Hematol. 2010;92:246–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  167. 167.
    Weiler-Sagie M, Bushelev O, Epelbaum R, et al. (18)F-FDG avidity in lymphoma readdressed: a study of 766 patients. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:25–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  168. 168.
    Tsukamoto N, Kojima M, Hasegawa M, et al. The usefulness of (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography ((18)F-FDG-PET) and a comparison of (18)F-FDG-PET with (67)gallium scintigraphy in the evaluation of lymphoma: relation to histologic subtypes based on the World Health Organization classification. Cancer. 2007;110:652–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  169. 169.
    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
  170. 170.
    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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  171. 171.
    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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  172. 172.
    Le Dortz L, De Guibert S, Bayat S, et al. Diagnostic and prognostic impact of (18)F-FDG PET/CT in follicular lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:2307–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  173. 173.
    Campbell BA, Voss N, Woods R, et al. Long-term outcomes for patients with limited stage follicular lymphoma: involved regional radiotherapy versus involved node radiotherapy. Cancer. 2010;116:3797–806.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  174. 174.
    Bishu S, Quigley JM, Bishu SR, et al. Predictive value and diagnostic accuracy of F-18-fluoro-deoxy-glucose positron emission tomography treated grade 1 and 2 follicular lymphoma. Leuk Lymphoma. 2007;48:1548–55.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  175. 175.
    Jacobs SA, Swerdlow SH, Kant J, et al. Phase II trial of short-course CHOP-R followed by 90Y-ibritumomab tiuxetan and extended rituximab in previously untreated follicular lymphoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14:7088–94.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  176. 176.
    Zinzani PL, Musuraca G, Alinari L, et al. Predictive role of positron emission tomography in the outcome of patients with follicular lymphoma. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma. 2007;7:291–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  177. 177.
    Trotman J, Fournier M, Lamy T, et al. Positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) after induction therapy is highly predictive of patient outcome in follicular lymphoma: analysis of PET-CT in a subset of PRIMA trial participants. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:3194–200.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  178. 178.
    Dupuis J, Berriolo-Riedinger A, Julian A, et al. Impact of [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography response evaluation in patients with high–tumor burden follicular lymphoma treated with immunochemotherapy: a prospective study from the Groupe d’Etudes des Lymphomes de l’Adulte and GOELAMS. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:4317–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  179. 179.
    Lopci E, Zanoni L, Chiti A, et al. FDG PET/CT predictive role in follicular lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39:864–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  180. 180.
    Zinzani PL, Magagnoli M, Chierichetti F, et al. The role of positron emission tomography (PET) in the management of lymphoma patients. Ann Oncol. 1999;10:1181–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  181. 181.
    Cremerius U, Fabry U, Neuerburg J, Zimny M, Osieka R, Buell U. Positron emission tomography with 18F-FDG to detect residual disease after therapy for malignant lymphoma. Nucl Med Commun. 1998;19:1055–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  182. 182.
    Wiedmann E, Baican B, Hertel A, et al. Positron emission tomography (PET) for staging and evaluation of response to treatment in patients with Hodgkin’s disease. Leuk Lymphoma. 1999;34:545–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  183. 183.
    Hueltenschmidt B, Sautter-Bihl ML, Lang O, et al. Whole body positron emission tomography in the treatment of Hodgkin disease. Cancer. 2001;91:302–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  184. 184.
    Diehl V, Re D, Harris NL, Mauch PM. Hodgkin lymphoma. In: DeVita VT, Lawrence TS, Rosenberg SA, editors. DeVita, Hellman, and Rosenberg’s Cancer: principles and practice of oncology. 8th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008. p. 2167–213.Google Scholar
  185. 185.
    Robinson SP, Goldstone AH, Mackinnon S, et al. Chemoresistant or aggressive lymphoma predicts for a poor outcome following reduced-intensity allogeneic progenitor cell transplantation: an analysis from the Lymphoma Working Party of the European Group for Blood and Bone Marrow Transplantation. Blood. 2002;100:4310–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  186. 186.
    Moskowitz CH, Yahalom J, Zelenetz AD, et al. High-dose chemo-radiotherapy for relapsed or refractory Hodgkin lymphoma and the significance of pre-transplant functional imaging. Br J Haematol. 2010;148:890–7.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  187. 187.
    Smeltzer JP, Cashen AF, Zhang Q, et al. Prognostic significance of FDG-PET in relapsed or refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma treated with standard salvage chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2011;17:1646–52.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  188. 188.
    Moskowitz AJ, Yahalom J, Kewalramani T, et al. Pretransplantation functional imaging predicts outcome following autologous stem cell transplantation for relapsed and refractory Hodgkin lymphoma. Blood. 2010;116:4934–7.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  189. 189.
    Moskowitz CH, Matasar MJ, Zelenetz AD, et al. Normalization of pre-ASCT, FDG-PET imaging with second-line, non-cross-resistant, chemotherapy programs improves event-free survival in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma. Blood. 2012;119:1665–70.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  190. 190.
    Sucak GT, Özkurt ZN, Suyani E, et al. Early post-transplantation positron emission tomography in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma is an independent prognostic factor with an impact on overall survival. Ann Hematol. 2011;90:1329–36.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  191. 191.
    Terasawa T, Dahabreh IJ, Nihashi T, et al. Fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in response assessment before high-dose chemotherapy for lymphoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Oncologist. 2010;15:750–9.Google Scholar
  192. 192.
    Poulou LS, Thanos L, Ziakas PD. Unifying the predictive value of pretransplant FDG PET in patients with lymphoma: a review and meta-analysis of published trials. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:156–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  193. 193.
    Spaepen K, Stroobants S, Dupont P, et al. Prognostic value of pretransplantation positron emission tomography using fluorine 18-fluorodeoxyglucose in patients with aggressive lymphoma treated with high-dose chemotherapy and stem cell transplantation. Blood. 2003;102:53–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  194. 194.
    Cremerius U, Fabry U, Wildberger JE, et al. Pre-transplant positron emission tomography (PET) using fluorine-18-fluoro-deoxyglucose (FDG) predicts outcome in patients treated with high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2002;30:103–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  195. 195.
    Becherer A, Mitterbauer M, Jaeger U, et al. Positron emission tomography with [18F]2-fluoro-D-2-deoxyglucose (FDG-PET) predicts relapse of malignant lymphoma after high-dose therapy with stem cell transplantation. Leukemia. 2002;16:260–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  196. 196.
    Roland V, Bodet-Milin C, Moreau A, et al. Impact of high-dose chemotherapy followed by auto-SCT for positive interim [18F] FDG-PET diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2011;46:393–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  197. 197.
    Dickinson M, Hoyt R, Roberts AW, et al. Improved survival for relapsed diffuse large B cell lymphoma is predicted by a negative pre-transplant FDG-PET scan following salvage chemotherapy. Br J Haematol. 2010;150:39–45.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  198. 198.
    Quddus F, Armitage JO. Salvage therapy for Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Cancer J. 2009;15:161–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  199. 199.
    Seshadri T, Kuruvilla J, Crump M, Keating A. Salvage therapy for relapsed/refractory diffuse large B cell lymphoma. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2008;14:259–67.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  200. 200.
    Zinzani PL, Stefoni V, Tani M, et al. Role of [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography scan in the follow-up of lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:1781–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  201. 201.
    Canellos GP, Horwich A. Management of recurrent Hodgkin’s disease. In: Mauch P, Armitage J, editors. Hodgkin’s disease. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 1999. p. 505–19.Google Scholar
  202. 202.
    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;49:13–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  203. 203.
    Mocikova H, Obrtlikova P, Vackova B, Trneny M. Positron emission tomography at the end of first-line therapy and during follow-up in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma: a retrospective study. Ann Oncol. 2010;21:1222–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  204. 204.
    Lee AI, Zuckerman DS, Van den Abbeele AD, et al. Surveillance imaging of Hodgkin lymphoma patients in first remission: a clinical and economic analysis. Cancer. 2010;116:3835–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  205. 205.
    Goldschmidt N, Or O, Klein M, Savitsky B, Paltiel O. The role of routine imaging procedures in the detection of relapse of patients with Hodgkin lymphoma and aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Ann Hematol. 2011;90:165–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  206. 206.
    Petrausch U, Samaras P, Veit-Haibach P, et al. Hodgkin’s lymphoma in remission after first-line therapy: which patients need FDG-PET/CT for follow-up? Ann Oncol. 2010;21:1053–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  207. 207.
    El-Galaly T, Mylam KJ, Brown P, et al. Positron emission tomography/computed tomography surveillance in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma in first remission has a low positive predictive value and high costs. Haematologica. 2012;97:931–6.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  208. 208.
    Weeks JC, Yeap BY, Canellos GP, et al. Value of follow-up procedures in patients with large-cell lymphoma who achieve a complete remission. J Clin Oncol. 1991;9:1196–203.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  209. 209.
    Thompson CA, Maurer MJ, Ghesquieres H, et al. Utility of post-therapy surveillance scans in DLBCL (abstract 8504). J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:Suppl.Google Scholar
  210. 210.
    Pingali Sr, Jewell S, Havlat L, et al. Clinical or survival benefit to routine surveillance imaging for classical Hodgkin lymphoma patients in first complete remission (abstract 8505). J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:Suppl.Google Scholar
  211. 211.
    Mettler Jr FA, Huda W, Yoshizumi TT, Mahesh M. Effective doses in radiology and diagnostic nuclear medicine: a catalog. Radiology. 2008;248:254–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  212. 212.
    Gisselbrecht C, Vose J, Nademannee A, et al. Radioimmunotherapy for stem cell transplantation in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: in pursuit of a complete response. Oncologist. 2009;14(Suppl 2):41–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyIcahn School of Medicine at Mount SinaiNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Division of Hematology-Oncology, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer CenterGeorgetown University HospitalWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations