Advertisement

Prognostic value of metabolic tumour volume on baseline 18F-FDG PET/CT in addition to NCCN-IPI in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: further stratification of the group with a high-risk NCCN-IPI

  • Qaid Ahmed Shagera
  • Gi Jeong CheonEmail author
  • Youngil Koh
  • Min Young Yoo
  • Keon Wook Kang
  • Dong Soo Lee
  • E. Edmund Kim
  • Sung-Soo Yoon
  • June-Key Chung
Original Article
  • 109 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to determine the prognostic value of metabolic volumetric parameters as a quantitative index on pre-treatment 18F-FDG PET/CT in addition to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network International Prognostic Index (NCCN-IPI) in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).

Methods

A total of 103 consecutive patients with DLBCL and baseline FDG PET/CT were retrospectively evaluated. Quantitative metabolic parameters, including total metabolic tumour volume (TMTV) using a standardized uptake value (SUV) of ≥2.5 as the threshold, were estimated. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to determine the optimal cut-off values for the metabolic parameters. The relationships between study variables and patient survival were tested using Cox regression analysis. Patient survival rates were derived from Kaplan-Meier curves and compared using the log-rank test.

Results

Median follow-up was 34 months. In patients with a low TMTV (<249 cm3), the 3-year progression free survival (PFS) rate was 83% and the overall survival (OS) rate was 92%, in contrast to 41% and 57%, respectively, in those with a high TMTV (≥249 cm3). In univariate analysis, a high TMTV and NCCN-IPI ≥4 were associated with inferior PFS and OS (P < 0.0001 for all), as was a high total lesion glycolysis (P = 0.004 and P = 0.005, respectively). In multivariate analysis, TMTV and NCCN-IPI were independent predictors of PFS (hazard ratio, HR, 3.11, 95% confidence interval, CI, 1.37–7.07, P = 0.007, and HR 3.42, 95% CI 1.36–8.59, P = 0.009, respectively) and OS (HR 3.41, 95% CI 1.24–9.38, P = 0.017, and HR 5.06, 95% CI 1.46–17.60, P = 0.014, respectively). TMTV was able to separate patients with a high-risk NCCN-IPI of ≥4 (n = 62) into two groups with significantly different outcomes; patients with low TMTV (n = 16) had a 3-year PFS rate of 75% and an OS rate of 88%, while those with a high TMTV had a 3-year PFS rate of 32% and an OS rate of 47% (χ2 = 7.92, P = 0.005, and χ2 = 8.26, P = 0.004, respectively). However, regardless of TMTV, patients with a low-risk NCCN-IPI of <4 (n = 41) had excellent outcomes (3-year PFS and OS rates of 85% and 95%, respectively).

Conclusion

Pretreatment TMTV was an independent predictor of survival in patients with DLBCL. Importantly, TMTV had an additive prognostic value in patients with a high-risk NCCN-IPI. Thus, the combination of baseline TMTV with NCCN-IPI may improve the prognostication and may be helpful guide the decision for intensive therapy and clinical trials, especially in DLBCL patients with a high-risk NCCN-IPI.

Keywords

FDG PET/CT Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma Metabolic tumour volume Prognosis 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by an intramural research program of Seoul National University College of Medicine and a grant from the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI) funded by the Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea (grant no. HI14C1072 & H18C1916).

Funding

This study was supported by a National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIP) (no. 2012R1A2A1A01010846) and a grant from the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI), funded by the Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea (grant no. HI14C1072 & H18C1916).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

None.

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.

Informed consent

This retrospective study was approved by the institutional review board. The requirement for written informed consent was waived due to the retrospective design of the study.

Supplementary material

259_2019_4309_MOESM1_ESM.docx (197 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 196 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Fisher RI, Miller TP, O’Connor OA. Diffuse aggressive lymphoma. Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program. 2004;2004(1):221–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pfreundschuh M, Kuhnt E, Trumper L, Osterborg A, Trneny M, Shepherd L, et al. CHOP-like chemotherapy with or without rituximab in young patients with good-prognosis diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma: 6-year results of an open-label randomised study of the MabThera International Trial (MInT) Group. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12(11):1013–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Coiffier B, Lepage E, Briere J, Herbrecht R, Tilly H, Bouabdallah R, et al. CHOP chemotherapy plus rituximab compared with CHOP alone in elderly patients with diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma. N Engl J Med. 2002;346(4):235–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Friedberg JW. Relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program. 2011;2011(1):498–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    International Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Prognostic Factors Project. A predictive model for aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. N Engl J Med. 1993;329(14):987–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bari A, Marcheselli L, Sacchi S, Marcheselli R, Pozzi S, Ferri P, et al. Prognostic models for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in the rituximab era: a never-ending story. Ann Oncol. 2010;21(7):1486–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sehn LH, Berry B, Chhanabhai M, Fitzgerald C, Gill K, Hoskins P, et al. The revised International Prognostic Index (R-IPI) is a better predictor of outcome than the standard IPI for patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma treated with R-CHOP. Blood. 2007;109(5):1857–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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(6):837–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dybkaer K, Bogsted M, Falgreen S, Bodker JS, Kjeldsen MK, Schmitz A, et al. Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma classification system that associates normal B-cell subset phenotypes with prognosis. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(12):1379–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cheson BD, Pfistner B, Juweid ME, Gascoyne RD, Specht L, Horning SJ, et al. Revised response criteria for malignant lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(5):579–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Barrington SF, Mikhaeel NG, Kostakoglu L, Meignan M, Hutchings M, Mueller 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(27):3048–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kim J, Hong J, Kim SG, Hwang KH, Kim M, Ahn HK, et al. Prognostic value of metabolic tumor volume estimated by (18)F-FDG positron emission tomography/computed tomography in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma of stage II or III disease. Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;48(3):187–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sasanelli M, Meignan M, Haioun C, Berriolo-Riedinger A, Casasnovas RO, Biggi A, et al. Pretherapy metabolic tumour volume is an independent predictor of outcome in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41(11):2017–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chihara D, Oki Y, Onoda H, Taji H, Yamamoto K, Tamaki T, et al. High maximum standard uptake value (SUVmax) on PET scan is associated with shorter survival in patients with diffuse large B cell lymphoma. Int J Hematol. 2011;93(4):502–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Song MK, Chung JS, Shin HJ, Lee SM, Lee SE, Lee HS, 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(5):697–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Esfahani SA, Heidari P, Halpern EF, Hochberg EP, Palmer EL, Mahmood U. Baseline total lesion glycolysis measured with (18)F-FDG PET/CT as a predictor of progression-free survival in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: a pilot study. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;3(3):272–81.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mikhaeel NG, Smith D, Dunn JT, Phillips M, Moller H, Fields PA, et al. Combination of baseline metabolic tumour volume and early response on PET/CT improves progression-free survival prediction in DLBCL. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43(7):1209–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Toledano MN, Desbordes P, Banjar A, Gardin I, Vera P, Ruminy P, et al. Combination of baseline FDG PET/CT total metabolic tumour volume and gene expression profile have a robust predictive value in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45(5):680–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cottereau AS, Lanic H, Mareschal S, Meignan M, Vera P, Tilly H, et al. Molecular profile and FDG-PET/CT total metabolic tumor volume improve risk classification at diagnosis for patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2016;22(15):3801–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hans CP, Weisenburger DD, Greiner TC, Gascoyne RD, Delabie J, Ott G, et al. Confirmation of the molecular classification of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma by immunohistochemistry using a tissue microarray. Blood. 2004;103(1):275–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Meignan M, Sasanelli M, Casasnovas RO, Luminari S, Fioroni F, Coriani C, et al. Metabolic tumour volumes measured at staging in lymphoma: methodological evaluation on phantom experiments and patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41(6):1113–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Freudenberg LS, Antoch G, Schutt P, Beyer T, Jentzen W, Muller SP, et al. FDG-PET/CT in re-staging of patients with lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004;31(3):325–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ilyas H, Mikhaeel NG, Dunn JT, Rahman F, Moller H, Smith D, et al. Defining the optimal method for measuring baseline metabolic tumour volume in diffuse large B cell lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45(7):1142–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Boellaard R, Delgado-Bolton R, Oyen WJ, Giammarile F, Tatsch K, Eschner W, et al. FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42(2):328–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Horwitz SM, Zelenetz AD, Gordon LI, Wierda WG, Abramson JS, Advani RH, et al. NCCN guidelines insights: non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas, version 3.2016. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2016;14(9):1067–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Khalil MM. Basic science of PET imaging. Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 2017. p. 303–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chen GH, Yao ZF, Fan XW, Zhang YJ, Gao HQ, Qian W, et al. Variation in background intensity affects PET-based gross tumor volume delineation in non-small-cell lung cancer: the need for individualized information. Radiother Oncol. 2013;109(1):71–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kostakoglu L, Chauvie S. Metabolic tumor volume metrics in lymphoma. Semin Nucl Med. 2018;48(1):50–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Adams HJ, de Klerk JM, Fijnheer R, Heggelman BG, Dubois SV, Nievelstein RA, et al. Prognostic superiority of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network International Prognostic Index over pretreatment whole-body volumetric-metabolic FDG-PET/CT metrics in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Eur J Haematol. 2015;94(6):532–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Xie M, Wu K, Liu Y, Jiang Q, Xie Y. Predictive value of F-18 FDG PET/CT quantization parameters in diffuse large B cell lymphoma: a meta-analysis with 702 participants. Med Oncol. 2015;32(1):446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Song MK, Yang DH, Lee GW, Lim SN, Shin S, Pak KJ, et al. High total metabolic tumor volume in PET/CT predicts worse prognosis in diffuse large B cell lymphoma patients with bone marrow involvement in rituximab era. Leuk Res. 2016;42:1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Schoder H, Noy A, Gonen M, Weng L, Green D, Erdi YE, et al. Intensity of 18fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in positron emission tomography distinguishes between indolent and aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(21):4643–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hutchings M, Loft A, Hansen M, Ralfkiaer E, Specht L. Different histopathological subtypes of Hodgkin lymphoma show significantly different levels of FDG uptake. Hematol Oncol. 2006;24(3):146–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Cottereau AS, Lanic H, Mareschal S, Meignan M, Vera P, Tilly H, et al. Molecular profile and FDG-PET metabolic volume at staging in DLBCL-response. Clin Cancer Res. 2016;22(13):3414–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Qaid Ahmed Shagera
    • 1
    • 2
  • Gi Jeong Cheon
    • 1
    • 3
    • 4
    Email author
  • Youngil Koh
    • 4
    • 5
  • Min Young Yoo
    • 1
    • 6
  • Keon Wook Kang
    • 1
    • 3
    • 4
  • Dong Soo Lee
    • 1
    • 3
  • E. Edmund Kim
    • 1
    • 7
  • Sung-Soo Yoon
    • 4
    • 5
  • June-Key Chung
    • 1
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Nuclear MedicineSeoul National University, College of MedicineSeoulSouth Korea
  2. 2.Department of Nuclear MedicineAlthawrah Modern General HospitalSana’aYemen
  3. 3.Department of Nuclear MedicineSeoul National University HospitalSeoulSouth Korea
  4. 4.Cancer Research Institute and Radiation Medicine InstituteSeoul National UniversitySeoulSouth Korea
  5. 5.Division of Hematology/Medical Oncology, Department of Internal MedicineSeoul National University HospitalSeoulSouth Korea
  6. 6.Department of Nuclear MedicineChungbuk National University HospitalCheongjuSouth Korea
  7. 7.Department of Radiological SciencesUniversity of CaliforniaIrvineUSA

Personalised recommendations