Diagnostic accuracy of FDG PET/CT for clinical evaluation at the end of treatment of HL and NHL: a comparison of the Deauville Criteria (DC) and the International Harmonization Project Criteria (IHPC)

  • Federico Fallanca
  • Pierpaolo Alongi
  • Elena Incerti
  • Luigi Gianolli
  • Maria Picchio
  • Irfan Kayani
  • Jamshed BomanjiEmail author
Original Article



To evaluate the accuracy and prognostic value of FDG PET/CT for response assessment after treatment in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) when using the Deauville Criteria (DC) and the International Harmonization Project Criteria (IHPC).


This retrospective study included 101 patients (35 HL, 66 NHL) who underwent early restaging FDG PET/CT after treatment. Scans were evaluated using the IHPC and DC. Two thresholds of positivity for the DC were used: a score of at least 3 (DC3, i.e. scores 3 – 5) and a score of at least 4 (DC4, i.e. a score of 4 or 5). Accuracy was assessed using conventional diagnostic procedures, multidisciplinary team case notes, further PET/CT scans and/or follow-up. Progression-free survival and overall survival were computed using the Kaplan-Meier method. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to identify predictors of outcome.


Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy of FDG PET/CT for early restaging were, respectively, 92 %, 87 %, 74 %, 92 % and 86 % using DC4, 97 %, 76 %, 64 %, 98 % and 84 % using DC3, and 97 %, 67 %, 57 %, 98 % and 76 % using the IHPC. FDG PET/CT positivity was associated with a worse cumulative survival rate over a 2-year period when using DC4 in comparison with the IHPC (20 % vs. 49 %; p < 0.05) and DC3 (47 %; p < 0.05). Cox regression analysis showed different risks of progression in patients positive on FDG PET/CT using the IHPC, DC3 and DC4 (hazard ratios 1.57, 0.7 and 3.2, respectively).


FDG PET/CT using DC4 showed higher diagnostic accuracy for HL and NHL than FDG PET/CT using either the IHPC or DC3, indicating its value in predicting clinical outcome after treatment.


Deauville Criteria International Harmonization Project Criteria Hodgkin lymphoma Non-Hodgkin lymphoma 18F-FDG PET/CT End of therapy Restaging 


Compliance with ethical standards



Conflicts of interest


Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the principles of the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. For this type of study formal consent is not required.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study


  1. 1.
    De Angelis R, Sant M, Coleman MP, Francisci S, Baili P, Pierannunzio D, et al. Cancer survival in Europe 1999–2007 by country and age: results of EUROCARE-5 – a population-based study. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:23–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sant M, Minicozzi P, Mounier M, Anderson LA, Brenner H, Holleczek B, et al. Survival for haematological malignancies in Europe between 1997 and 2008 by region and age: results of EUROCARE-5, a population-based study. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:931–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Johnson SA, Kumar A, Matasar MJ, Schöder H, Rademaker J. Imaging for staging and response assessment in lymphoma. Radiology. 2015;276:323–38.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cheson BD, Fisher RI, Barrington SF, Cavalli F, Schwartz LH, Zucca E, et al. Recommendations for initial evaluation, staging, and response assessment of Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma: the Lugano classification. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:3059–68.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cheson BD. Staging and response assessment in lymphomas: the new Lugano classification. Chin Clin Oncol. 2015;4:5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pyo J, Won Kim K, Jacene HA, Sakellis CG, Brown JR, Van den Abbeele AD. End-therapy positron emission tomography for treatment response assessment in follicular lymphoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19:6566–77.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bodet-Milin C, Eugène T, Gastinne T, Frampas E, Le Gouill S, Kraeber-Bodéré F. FDG-PET in follicular lymphoma management. J Oncol. 2012;2012:370272.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Luminari S, Biasoli I, Versari A, Rattotti S, Bottelli C, Rusconi C, et al. The prognostic role of post-induction FDG-PET in patients with follicular lymphoma: a subset analysis from the FOLL05 trial of the Fondazione Italiana Linfomi (FIL). Ann Oncol. 2014;25:442–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hutchings M, Barrington SF. PET/CT for therapy response assessment in lymphoma. J Nucl Med. 2009;50 Suppl 1:21S–30.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brepoels L, Stroobants S, De Wever W, Spaepen K, Vandenberghe P, Thomas J, et al. Aggressive and indolent non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: response assessment by integrated international workshop criteria. Leuk Lymphoma. 2007;48:1522–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brepoels L, Stroobants S, De Wever W, Spaepen K, Vandenberghe P, Thomas J, et al. Hodgkin lymphoma: response assessment by revised international workshop criteria. Leuk Lymphoma. 2007;48:1539–47.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cheson BD. New response criteria for lymphomas in clinical trials. Ann Oncol. 2008;19:35–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gallamini A, Kostakoglu L. Interim FDG-PET in Hodgkin lymphoma: a compass for a safe navigation in clinical trials? Blood. 2012;120:4913–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gallamini A, Patti C, Viviani S, Rossi A, Fiore F, Di Raimondo F, et al. Early chemotherapy intensification with BEACOPP in advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma patients with a interim-PET positive after two ABVD courses. Br J Haematol. 2011;152:551–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Meignan M, Gallamini A, Haioun C. Report on the First International Workshop on Interim-PET-Scan in Lymphoma. Leuk Lymphoma. 2009;50:1257–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Barrington SF, Qian W, Somer EJ, Franceschetto A, Bagni B, Brun 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Biggi A, Gallamini A, Chauvie S, Hutchings M, Kostakoglu L, Gregianin M, 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Altman DG, Bland JM. Diagnostic tests. 1: sensitivity and specificity. BMJ. 1994;308:1552.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Altman DG, Bland JM. Diagnostic tests 2: predictive values. BMJ. 1994;309:102.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Diagnostic tests 4: likelihood ratios. BMJ. 2004;329:168–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cerci JJ, Pracchia LF, Linardi CCG, Pitella FA, Delbeke D, Izaki M, 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Engert A, Haverkamp H, Kobe C, Markova J, Renner C, Ho A, et al. Reduced-intensity chemotherapy and PET-guided radiotherapy in patients with advanced stage Hodgkin’s lymphoma (HD15 trial): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2012;379:1791–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Micallef IN, Maurer MJ, Wiseman GA, Nikcevich DA, Kurtin PJ, Cannon MW, et al. Epratuzumab with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone chemotherapy in patients with previously untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Blood. 2011;118:4053–61.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mikhaeel NG, Timothy AR, Hain SF, O’Doherty MJ. 18-FDG-PET for the assessment of residual masses on CT following treatment of lymphomas. Ann Oncol. 2000;11 Suppl 1:147–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zijlstra JM, Lindauer-van der Werf G, Hoekstra OS, Riphagen HL, Huijgens PC. 18F-fluoro-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography for post-treatment evaluation of malignant lymphoma: a systematic review. Haematologica. 2006;91:522–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Strigari L, Attili A, Duggento A, Chiaravalloti A, Schillaci O, Guerrisi MG. Quantitative analysis of basal and interim PET/CT images for predicting tumor recurrence in patients with Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Nucl Med Commun. 2016;37:16–22PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Horning SJ, Juweid ME, Schöder H, Wiseman G, McMillan A, Swinnen LJ, et al. Interim positron emission tomography scans in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: an independent expert nuclear medicine evaluation of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group E3404 study. Blood. 2010;115:775–7. quiz 918.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Barrington SF, Mikhaeel NG, Kostakoglu L, Meignan M, Hutchings M, Müeller SP, et al. Role of imaging in the staging and response assessment of lymphoma: consensus of the International Conference on Malignant Lymphomas Imaging Working Group. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:3048–58.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Chiaravalloti A, Danieli R, Abbatiello P, Di Pietro B, Travascio L, Cantonetti M, et al. Factors affecting intrapatient liver and mediastinal blood pool 18F-FDG standardized uptake value changes during ABVD chemotherapy in Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:1123–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Trotman J, Fournier M, Lamy T, Seymour JF, Sonet A, Janikova A, 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Federico Fallanca
    • 1
  • Pierpaolo Alongi
    • 1
    • 2
  • Elena Incerti
    • 1
  • Luigi Gianolli
    • 1
  • Maria Picchio
    • 1
  • Irfan Kayani
    • 3
  • Jamshed Bomanji
    • 3
    • 4
    Email author
  1. 1.Unit of Nuclear MedicineIRCCS San Raffaele Scientific InstituteMilanItaly
  2. 2.Nuclear Medicine Unit, Department of Radiological SciencesSan Raffaele G. Giglio InstituteCefalùItaly
  3. 3.University College London HospitalLondonUK
  4. 4.Department of Nuclear MedicineUniversity College Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustLondonUK

Personalised recommendations