Advertisement

All that glitters is not gold - new reconstruction methods using Deauville criteria for patient reporting

  • Sally F. BarringtonEmail author
  • Tom Sulkin
  • Adam Forbes
  • Peter W. M. Johnson
Letter to the Editor

Dear Sir,

We would like to highlight the importance of using EANM Research Ltd. (EARL) compliant reconstructions for assessment of lymphoma response using the Deauville criteria [1] in clinical practice.

The recent review in this journal by Aide et al. reported that only 38% of EARL accredited centres that responded to a survey, were systematically using EARL compliant reconstructions for quantification [2]. This was despite 88% of these centres being research active.

We recently observed an increase in the number of patients with interim PET ‘positive’ scans being treated by a regional haematology multidisciplinary team (MDT) for Hodgkin lymphoma in the UK. This coincided with the adoption of Q.Clear (GE) reconstruction [3] for reporting scans at some PET centres.

An independent review of PET-CT scans from eight of these patients with advanced stage disease planned for treatment using a PET response adapted approach [4] was undertaken at the request of the MDT. Baseline and interim...

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare they have no conflicts of interest related to this submission.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. 1.
    Meignan M, Gallamini A, 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
  2. 2.
    Aide N, Lasnon C, Veit-Haibach P, Sera T, Sattler B, Boellaard R. EANM/EARL harmonization strategies in PET quantification: from daily practice to multicentre oncological studies. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44:17–31.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Q.Clear - PET/CT Applications - PET/CT - Molecular Imaging - Nuclear Medicine\PET-CT\PET-Radiopharmacy - Products. Accessed 10/25/2017 2017.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Johnson P, Federico M, Fossa A, O'Doherty M, Roberts T, Stevens L, et al. Response-adapted therapy based on interim FDG-PET scans in advanced Hodgkin lymphoma first analysis of the safety of de-escalation and efficacy of escalation in the international RATHL study (CRUK/07/033). Hematol Oncol. 2015;33:100–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    mi_emea_sharpir_white_paper_pdf_092010_doc0852276.pdf. Accessed 10/25/2017 2017.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Panin VY, Kehren F, Michel C, Casey M. Fully 3-D PET reconstruction with system matrix derived from point source measurements. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2006;25:907–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    van der Vos CS, Koopman D, Rijnsdorp S, Arends AJ, Boellaard R, van Dalen JA, et al. Quantification, improvement, and harmonization of small lesion detection with state-of-the-art PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44:4–16.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Alessio AM, Stearns CW, Tong S, Ross SG, Kohlmyer S, Ganin A, et al. Application and evaluation of a measured spatially variant system model for PET image reconstruction. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2010;29:938–49.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bettinardi V, Presotto L, Rapisarda E, Picchio M, Gianolli L, Gilardi MC. Physical performance of the new hybrid PETCT Discovery-690. Med Phys. 2011;38:5394–411.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Teoh EJ, McGowan DR, Bradley KM, Belcher E, Black E, Gleeson FV. Novel penalised likelihood reconstruction of PET in the assessment of histologically verified small pulmonary nodules. Eur Radiol. 2016;26:576–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Teoh EJ, McGowan DR, Bradley KM, Belcher E, Black E, Moore A, et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT assessment of histopathologically confirmed mediastinal lymph nodes in non-small cell lung cancer using a penalised likelihood reconstruction. Eur Radiol. 2016;26:4098–106.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Parvizi N, Franklin JM, McGowan DR, Teoh EJ, Bradley KM, Gleeson FV. Does a novel penalized likelihood reconstruction of 18F-FDG PET-CT improve signal-to-background in colorectal liver metastases? Eur J Radiol. 2015;84:1873–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kuhnert G, Boellaard R, Sterzer S, Kahraman D, Scheffler M, Wolf J, et al. Impact of PET/CT image reconstruction methods and liver uptake normalization strategies on quantitative image analysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:249–58.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Quak E, Le Roux PY, Lasnon C, Robin P, Hofman MS, Bourhis D, Callahan J, Binns DS, Desmonts C, Salaun PY, Hicks RJ, Aide N. Does PET SUV Harmonization affect PERCIST response classification?. J Nucl Med 2016;57:1699–1706.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Andre MPE, Girinsky T, Federico M, Reman O, Fortpied C, Gotti M, et al. Early positron emission tomography response-adapted treatment in stage I and II Hodgkin lymphoma: final results of the randomized EORTC/LYSA/FIL H10 trial. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:1786–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    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
  18. 18.
    Radford J, Illidge T, Counsell N, Hancock B, Pettengell R, Johnson P, et al. Results of a trial of PET-directed therapy for early-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:1598–607.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    EQPET_WP.indd - eq-pet_wp-02580275.pdf. Accessed 11/10/2017 2017.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.KCL and Guy’s and St Thomas’ PET Centre, School of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging SciencesKing’s College LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.Clinical Imaging DepartmentRoyal Cornwall HospitalTruroUK
  3. 3.Haematology DepartmentRoyal Cornwall HospitalTruroUK
  4. 4.Cancer Research UK CentreUniversity of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK

Personalised recommendations