Advertisement

Reply to letter of Adams and Kwee: Critical considerations on the predictive value of end-of-treatment FDG/PET in lymphoma

  • Federico Fallanca
  • Pierpaolo Alongi
  • Elena Incerti
  • Luigi Gianolli
  • Maria Picchio
  • Irfan Kayani
  • Jamshed B. BomanjiEmail author
Reply

Sir,

We appreciate the interest of Dr. Adams and Dr. Kwee in our article “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)” [1], but we are sorry that there was a clear misunderstanding of our study design. The main purpose of our study was to compare the two commonly used criteria for interpretation of FDG PET/CT (DC and IHPC) and evaluate their effectiveness in daily clinical practice in lymphoma patients.

According to Adams and Kwee, our study lacked a reference standard because “End of PFS was defined as clinical or radiological evidence of disease progression”. They then make the following statement, which is incorrect: “In other words, the value of end-of-treatment FDG-PET in predicting prognosis was tested using follow-up FDG-PET imaging as reference standard.”

To reiterate what is stated in the text of our article (section "FDG...

References

  1. 1.
    Fallanca F, Alongi P, Incerti E, Gianolli L, Picchio M, Kayani I, et al. 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). Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:1837–48.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Adams HJ, Kwee TC. Does end-of-treatment FDG-PET provide any additional prognostic value to the pre-treatment NCCN-IPI score? Br J Haematol. 2016. doi: 10.1111/bjh.14052.
  3. 3.
    Adams HJ, Nievelstein RA, Kwee TC. Prognostic value of complete remission status at end-of-treatment FDG-PET in R-CHOP-treated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Haematol. 2015;170:185–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Metser U, Mohan R, Beckley V, Moshonov H, Hodgson D, Murphy G. FDG PET/CT response assessment criteria for patients with Hodgkin’s and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma at end of therapy: a multiparametric approach. Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;50:46–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zhou Z, Sehn LH, Rademaker AW, Gordon LI, Lacasce AS, Crosby-Thompson A, et al. An enhanced International Prognostic Index (NCCN-IPI) for patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma treated in the rituximab era. Blood. 2014;123:837–842.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    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;339:1506–1514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Solal-Céligny P, Roy P, Colombat P, White J, Armitage JO, Arranz-Saez R, et al. Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index. Blood. 2004;104:1258–1265. Google 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 B. 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