Advertisement

Characterizing bone marrow involvement in Hodgkin’s lymphoma by FDG-PET/CT

  • Michal Weiler-SagieEmail author
  • Olga Kagna
  • Eldad J. Dann
  • Ayelet Ben-Barak
  • Ora Israel
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

Fluoro-deoxyglucose positron emmission tomography combined with computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) is superior to iliac bone marrow biopsy (iBMB) for detection of bone marrow involvement (BMI) in staging of Hodgkin’s lymphoma (HL). The present study aims to characterize the patterns and distribution of BMI in HL as determined by FDG-PET/CT.

Methods

Reports of FDG-PET/CT studies performed for staging of HL were reviewed. BMI was defined as positive iBMB and/or foci of pathological FDG uptake in the skeleton that behaved in concordance with other sites of lymphoma in studies following chemotherapy. Number of FDG uptake foci, their specific location in the skeleton and the presence of corresponding lesions in the CT component of the study, and stage according to the Ann Arbor staging system, were recorded.

Results

The study included 473 patients. iBMB was performed in 336 patients. Nine patients had positive iBMB (9/336, 3 %). Seventy-three patients (73/473, 15 %) had FDG-PET/CT-defined BMI. The BM was the only extranodal site of HL in 52/473 patients (11 %). Forty-five patients had three or more foci of pathological skeletal FDG uptake (45/73, 62 %). Sixty-four patients (64/73, 88 %) had at least one uptake focus in the pelvis or vertebrae. In 60 patients (60/73, 82 %), the number of skeletal FDG uptake foci without corresponding CT lesions was equal to or higher than the number of foci with morphological abnormalities.

Conclusion

FDG-PET/CT demonstrated BMI in 15 % of patients with newly diagnosed HL. Diagnosis of BMI in HL by FDG-PET/CT was more sensitive than iBMB with potential upstage in 11 % of patients. The most common pattern of FDG-PET/CT BMI was multifocal (at least three foci) skeletal FDG uptake, with at least one focus in the pelvis or vertebrae and no corresponding CT lesions.

Keywords

Hodgkin’s lymphoma Bone marrow FDG PET 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Drs. Daniela Militianu and Saher Srour from the radiology department for their continuing support and advice.

Conflicts of interest

None

References

  1. 1.
    Diehl V. Hodgkin’s disease–from pathology specimen to cure. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:1968–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Howlader N NA, Krapcho M, Garshell J, Neyman N, Altekruse SF, Kosary CL, Yu M, Ruhl J, Tatalovich Z, Cho H, Mariotto A, Lewis DR, Chen HS, Feuer EJ, Cronin KA (eds). National Cancer Institute. Bethesda, MD, . SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2010. p. based on November 2012 SEER data submission, posted to the SEER web site, http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2010/.
  3. 3.
    Skoetz N, Trelle S, Rancea M, Haverkamp H, Diehl V, Engert A, et al. Effect of initial treatment strategy on survival of patients with advanced-stage Hodgkin’s lymphoma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:943–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fletcher JW, Djulbegovic B, Soares HP, Siegel BA, Lowe VJ, Lyman GH, et al. Recommendations on the use of 18F-FDG PET in oncology. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:480–508.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology™ Hodgkin Lymphoma v.1.2013. National Comprehensive Cancer Network; 2013. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/PDF/hodgkins.
  6. 6.
    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
  7. 7.
    Barekman CL, Fair KP, Cotelingam JD. Comparative utility of diagnostic bone-marrow components: a 10-year study. Am J Hematol. 1997;56:37–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brunning RD, Bloomfield CD, McKenna RW, Peterson LA. Bilateral trephine bone marrow biopsies in lymphoma and other neoplastic diseases. Ann Intern Med. 1975;82:365–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shields AF, Porter BA, Churchley S, Olson DO, Appelbaum FR, Thomas ED. The detection of bone marrow involvement by lymphoma using magnetic resonance imaging. J Clin Oncol. 1987;5:225–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Linden A, Zankovich R, Theissen P, Diehl V, Schicha H. Malignant lymphoma: bone marrow imaging versus biopsy. Radiology. 1989;173:335–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hoane BR, Shields AF, Porter BA, Shulman HM. Detection of lymphomatous bone marrow involvement with magnetic resonance imaging. Blood. 1991;78:728–38.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Altehoefer C, Blum U, Bathmann J, Wustenberg C, Uhrmeister P, Laubenberger J, et al. Comparative diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging and immunoscintigraphy for detection of bone marrow involvement in patients with malignant lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 1997;15:1754–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Eichenauer DA, Engert A, Dreyling M. Hodgkin’s lymphoma: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2011;22 Suppl 6:vi55–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Munker R, Hasenclever D, Brosteanu O, Hiller E, Diehl V. Bone marrow involvement in Hodgkin’s disease: an analysis of 135 consecutive cases. German Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Study Group. J Clin Oncol. 1995;13:403–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Howell SJ, Grey M, Chang J, Morgenstern GR, Cowan RA, Deakin DP, et al. The value of bone marrow examination in the staging of Hodgkin’s lymphoma: a review of 955 cases seen in a regional cancer centre. Br J Haematol. 2002;119:408–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Eichenauer DA, Engert A, Diehl V. Hodgkin lymphoma: clinical manifestation, staging, and therapy. In: Hoffman R, Benz EJ, Silberstein LE, Heslop H, Weitz J, Anastasi J, editors. Hematology, Basic Principles and Practice. Philadelphia: Elsevier Saunders; 2013. p. 1138–56.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    National Cancer Institute: PDQ® Adult Hodgkin Lymphoma Treatment. Retrieved 18/08/2013, from http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/treatment/adulthodgkins/HealthProfessional/page3.
  18. 18.
    Moog F, Bangerter M, Diederichs CG, Guhlmann A, Kotzerke J, Merkle E, et al. Lymphoma: role of whole-body 2-deoxy-2-[F-18]fluoro-D-glucose (FDG) PET in nodal staging. Radiology. 1997;203:795–800.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Munker R, Glass J, Griffeth LK, Sattar T, Zamani R, Heldmann M, et al. Contribution of PET imaging to the initial staging and prognosis of patients with Hodgkin’s disease. Ann Oncol. 2004;15:1699–704.PubMedCrossRefGoogle 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Weiler-Sagie M, Bushelev O, Epelbaum R, Dann EJ, Haim N, Avivi I, et al. (18)F-FDG avidity in lymphoma readdressed: a study of 766 patients. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:25–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Purz S, Mauz-Korholz C, Korholz D, Hasenclever D, Krausse A, Sorge I, et al. [18F]Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography for detection of bone marrow involvement in children and adolescents with Hodgkin’s lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:3523–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    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
  24. 24.
    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;33:1025–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    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
  26. 26.
    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
  27. 27.
    Cerci JJ, Pracchia LF, Soares Junior J, Linardi Cda C, Meneghetti JC, Buccheri V. Positron emission tomography with 2-[18F]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose for initial staging of hodgkin lymphoma: a single center experience in Brazil. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2009;64:491–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Moulin-Romsee G, Hindie E, Cuenca X, Brice P, Decaudin D, Benamor 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
  29. 29.
    El-Galaly TC, d’Amore F, Mylam KJ, de Nully Brown P, Bogsted M, Bukh A, 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    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
  32. 32.
    Salaun PY, Gastinne T, Bodet-Milin C, Campion L, Cambefort P, Moreau A, 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Carbone PP, Kaplan HS, Musshoff K, Smithers DW, Tubiana M. Report of the Committee on Hodgkin’s Disease Staging Classification. Cancer Res. 1971;31:1860–1.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lister TA, Crowther D, Sutcliffe SB, Glatstein E, Canellos GP, Young RC, 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Cheng G, Chen W, Chamroonrat W, Torigian DA, Zhuang H, Alavi A. Biopsy versus FDG PET/CT in the initial evaluation of bone marrow involvement in pediatric lymphoma patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:1469–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Muzahir S, Mian M, Munir I, Nawaz MK, Faruqui ZS, Mufti KA, et al. Clinical utility of (1)(8)F FDG-PET/CT in the detection of bone marrow disease in Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Br J Radiol. 2012;85:e490–6.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kricun ME. Red-yellow marrow conversion: its effect on the location of some solitary bone lesions. Skeletal Radiol. 1985;14:10–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Vanel D, Husband JE, Padhani AR. Bone metastases. In: Husband JE, Reznek RH, editors. Imaging in Oncology. 2 ed. London: Taylor & Francis; 2004. p. 1041–58.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Delbeke D, Coleman RE, Guiberteau MJ, Brown ML, Royal HD, Siegel BA, et al. Procedure guideline for tumor imaging with 18F-FDG PET/CT 1.0. J Nucl Med. 2006;47:885–95.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Stauss J, Franzius C, Pfluger T, Juergens KU, Biassoni L, Begent J, et al. Guidelines for 18F-FDG PET and PET-CT imaging in paediatric oncology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;35:1581–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Boellaard R, O’Doherty MJ, Weber WA, Mottaghy FM, Lonsdale MN, Stroobants SG, et al. FDG PET and PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour PET imaging: version 1.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:181–200.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Aoki J, Watanabe H, Shinozaki T, Takagishi K, Ishijima H, Oya N, et al. FDG PET of primary benign and malignant bone tumors: standardized uptake value in 52 lesions. Radiology. 2001;219:774–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Nakamoto Y, Cohade C, Tatsumi M, Hammoud D, Wahl RL. CT appearance of bone metastases detected with FDG PET as part of the same PET/CT examination. Radiology. 2005;237:627–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Metser U, Even-Sapir E. Increased (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in benign, nonphysiologic lesions found on whole-body positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT): accumulated data from four years of experience with PET/CT. Semin Nucl Med. 2007;37:206–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Costelloe CM, Murphy Jr WA, Chasen BA. Musculoskeletal pitfalls in 18F-FDG PET/CT: pictorial review. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193:WS1–13. Quiz S26-30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michal Weiler-Sagie
    • 1
    Email author
  • Olga Kagna
    • 1
  • Eldad J. Dann
    • 2
  • Ayelet Ben-Barak
    • 3
  • Ora Israel
    • 4
  1. 1.Nuclear Medicine DepartmentRambam Health Care CampusHaifaIsrael
  2. 2.Hematology DepartmentRambam Health Care Campus and B. & R. Rappaport Faculty of Medicine, TechnionHaifaIsrael
  3. 3.Pediatric Hemato-Oncology DepartmentRambam Health Care Campus and B. & R. Rappaport Faculty of Medicine, TechnionHaifaIsrael
  4. 4.Nuclear Medicine DepartmentRambam Health Care Campus and B. & R. Rappaport Faculty of Medicine, TechnionHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations