Annals of Hematology

, Volume 85, Issue 11, pp 759–767 | Cite as

FDG-PET/CT predicts outcome in patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and Hodgkin’s disease

  • Solène Querellou
  • Frédéric Valette
  • Caroline Bodet-Milin
  • Aurore Oudoux
  • Thomas Carlier
  • Jean-Luc Harousseau
  • Jean-François Chatal
  • Olivier Couturier
Original Article


Early therapy response assessment with metabolic imaging is potentially useful to determine prognosis in aggressive lymphoma and, thus, can guide first-line therapy. Forty-eight patients with aggressive lymphoma [24 Hodgkin’s disease (HD); 24 non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL)] underwent fluoro-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) before chemotherapy (PET1) and at mid-treatment (PET2). Therapeutic response was evaluated using conventional methods at mid-treatment. PET2 results were related to event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) using Kaplan–Meier analyses. PET1 was positive in all patients. PET2 was negative in 38 patients (18 NHL-20 HD) and positive in 10 (6 NHL-4 HD). Of the PET-negative patients, 61 and 65% achieved complete remission, and only 50 and 25% of PET-positive patients, respectively, for NHL and HD, achieved complete remission. Significant associations were found between PET2 and EFS (p=0.0006) and OS (p=0.04) for NHL, and EFS (p<0.0001) for HD (but not for OS, because no HD patient died). FDG-PET at mid-treatment can predict the outcome of patients with aggressive lymphoma and should be a useful tool to modify an ineffective therapy.


FDG Positron emission tomography Hodgkin’s disease Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma 


  1. 1.
    Kogel KE, Sweetenham JW (2003) Current therapies in Hodgkin’s disease. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 30(Suppl 1):S19–S27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sehn LH, Connors JM (2005) Treatment of aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: a north American perspective. Oncology (Willist Park NY) 19:26–34Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Engelhard M, Meusers P, Brittinger G et al (1991) Prospective multicenter trial for the response-adapted treatment of high-grade malignant non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas: updated results of the COP-BLAM/IMVP-16 protocol with randomized adjuvant radiotherapy. Ann Oncol 2(Suppl 2):177–180PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Armitage JO, Weisenburger DD, Hutchins M et al (1986) Chemotherapy for diffuse large-cell lymphoma-rapidly responding patients have more durable remissions. J Clin Oncol 4:160–164PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lister TA, Crowther D, Sutcliffe SB et al (1989) Report of a committee convened to discuss the evaluation and staging of patients with Hodgkin’s disease: Cotswolds meeting. J Clin Oncol 7:1630–1636PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cheson BD, Horning SJ, Coiffier B et al (1999) Report of an international workshop to standardize response criteria for non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas. NCI Sponsored International Working Group. J Clin Oncol 17:1244–1253PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bangerter M, Moog F, Buchmann I et al (1998) Whole-body 2-[18F]-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) for accurate staging of Hodgkin’s disease. Ann Oncol 9:1117–1122PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jerusalem G, Beguin Y, Fassotte MF et al (2001) Whole-body positron emission tomography using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose compared to standard procedures for staging patients with Hodgkin’s disease. Haematologica 86:266–273PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Young CS, Young BL, Smith SM (1998) Staging Hodgkin’s disease with 18-FDG PET. Comparison with CT and surgery. Clin Positron Imaging 1:161–164PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jerusalem G, Beguin Y, Fassotte MF et al (2000) Persistent tumor 18F-FDG uptake after a few cycles of polychemotherapy is predictive of treatment failure in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Haematologica 85:613–618PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jerusalem G, Beguin Y, Fassotte MF et al (2003) Early detection of relapse by whole-body positron emission tomography in the follow-up of patients with Hodgkin’s disease. Ann Oncol 14:123–130PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Romer W, Hanauske AR, Ziegler S et al (1995) Positron emission tomography in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: assessment of chemotherapy with fluorodeoxyglucose. Blood 91:4464–4471Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss A, Strauss LG, Goldschmidt H et al (1995) Evaluation of tumour metabolism and multidrug resistance in patients with treated malignant lymphomas. Eur J Nucl Med 22:434–442PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jerusalem G, Beguin Y, Fassotte MF et al (1999) Whole-body positron emission tomography using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose for posttreatment evaluation in Hodgkin’s disease and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma has higher diagnostic and prognostic value than classical computed tomography scan imaging. Blood 94:429–433PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jerusalem G, Warland V, Najjar F et al (1999) Whole-body 18F-FDG PET for the evaluation of patients with Hodgkin’s disease and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Nucl Med Common 20:13–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    de Wit M, Bumann D, Beyer W et al (1997) Whole-body positron emission tomography (PET) for diagnosis of residual mass in patients with lymphoma. Ann Oncol 8:57–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Haioun C, Itti E, Rahmouni A et al (2005) [18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) in aggressive lymphoma: an early prognostic tool for predicting patient outcome. Blood 106:1376–1381PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kostakoglu L, Coleman M, Leonard JP et al (2002) PET predicts prognosis after 1 cycle of chemotherapy in aggressive lymphoma and Hodgkin’s disease. J Nucl Med 43:1018–1027PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mikhaeel NG, Timothy AR, O’Doherty MJ et al (2000) 18-FDG-PET as a prognostic indicator in the treatment of aggressive Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma-comparison with CT. Leuk Lymphoma 39:543–553PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Spaepen K, Stroobants S, Dupont P et al (2002) Early restaging positron emission tomography with (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose predicts outcome in patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Ann Oncol 13:1356–1363PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mikhaeel NG, Hutchings M, Fields PA et al (2005) FDG-PET after two to three cycles of chemotherapy predicts progression-free and overall survival in high-grade non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Ann Oncol 16:1514–1523PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hutchings M, Loft A, Hansen M et al (2006) FDG-PET after two cycles of chemotherapy predicts treatment failure and progression-free survival in Hodgkin lymphoma. Blood 107:52–59PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Israel O, Mor M, Epelbaum R et al (2002) Clinical pretreatment risk factors and Ga-67 scintigraphy early during treatment for prediction of outcome of patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Cancer 94:873–878PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    The International Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Prognostic Factors Project (1993) A predictive model for aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. N Engl J Med 329:987–994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hutchings M, Mikhaeel NG, Fields PA et al (2005) Prognostic value of interim FDG-PET after two or three cycles of chemotherapy in Hodgkin lymphoma. Ann Oncol 16:1160–1168PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Castellucci P, Zinzani P, Pourdehnad M et al (2005) 18F-FDG PET in malignant lymphoma: significance of positive findings. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 32:749–756PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Spaepen K, Stroobants S, Dupont P et al (2003) [(18)F]FDG PET monitoring of tumour response to chemotherapy: does [(18)F]FDG uptake correlate with the viable tumour cell fraction? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 30:678–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Miyauchi T, Wahl RL (1996) Regional 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose uptake varies in normal lung. Eur J Nucl Med 23:517–523PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Solène Querellou
    • 1
  • Frédéric Valette
    • 1
  • Caroline Bodet-Milin
    • 1
  • Aurore Oudoux
    • 1
  • Thomas Carlier
    • 1
  • Jean-Luc Harousseau
    • 2
  • Jean-François Chatal
    • 1
  • Olivier Couturier
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Nuclear MedicineHospital of the University of NantesNantesFrance
  2. 2.Department of HaematologyHospital of the University of NantesNantesFrance

Personalised recommendations