Annals of Hematology

, Volume 86, Issue 12, pp 897–903 | Cite as

Positron emission tomography in the staging of patients with Hodgkin’s lymphoma. A prospective multicentric study by the Intergruppo Italiano Linfomi

  • Luigi Rigacci
  • Umberto Vitolo
  • Luca Nassi
  • Francesco Merli
  • Andrea Gallamini
  • Patrizia Pregno
  • Isabel Alvarez
  • Flavia Salvi
  • Rosaria Sancetta
  • Antonio Castagnoli
  • Annibale Versari
  • Alberto Biggi
  • Michele Gregianin
  • Ettore Pelosi
  • Teodoro Chisesi
  • Alberto Bosi
  • Alessandro Levis
  • On behalf of Intergruppo Italiano Linfomi
Original Article

Abstract

In this prospective multicentric study, we investigated the contribution of positron emission tomography (PET) scanning to the staging of Hodgkin’s lymphoma (HL) by computed tomography (CT) and attempted to determine whether it has any impact on therapeutic approach. One hundred eighty six consecutive patients with HL from six Italian centers were enrolled in this study. They were staged with conventional methods; 2-[fluorine-18]fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose PET scanning were prospectively compared to CT. CT and FDG-PET stages were concordant in 156 patients (84%) and discordant in 30 patients (16%). PET stage in comparison to CT stage was higher in 27 patients (14%) and lower in 3 patients (1%). The programmed treatment strategy was modified in 11 out of 30 patients (37%) after the definition of final stage. If we considered the 123 CT staged patients with localized stage, ten patients (8%) with a change of stage from localized to advanced after PET evaluation were treated with different strategy. FDG-PET was shown to be a relevant, non-invasive method that supplements conventional procedures and should therefore be used routinely to stage HL, particularly in early stage patients, where a change in stage may modify disease management.

Keywords

Computed tomography FDG-PET  Hodgkin’s disease Staging 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank Massimiliano Cariati for linguistic review of the manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    Donaldson SS, Hancock SL, Hoppe RT (1999) The Janeway lecture. Hodgkin’s disease-finding the balance between cure and late effects. Cancer J Sci Am 5:325–333PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lister TA, Crowther D, Sutcliffe SB, Glatstein E, Canellos GP, Young RC, Rosenberg SA, Coltman CA, Tubiana M 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
  3. 3.
    Vinnicombe SJ, Reznek RH (2003) Computerised tomography in the staging of Hodgkin’s disease and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 30(Suppl 1):S42–S55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carrington B (1998) Lymph nodes. In: Husband JE, Reznek RH (eds) Imaging in oncology. Isis Medical Media, Oxford, pp 729–748Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jerusalem G, Beguin Y, Fassotte MF, Najjar F, Paulus P, Rigo P, Fillet G (1999) Whole-body positron emission tomography using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose for post-treatment 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
  6. 6.
    Jerusalem G, Beguin Y, Fassotte MF, Belhocine T, Hustinx R, Rigo P, Fillet G (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
  7. 7.
    Rigacci L, Castagnoli A, Dini C, Carpaneto A, Matteini M, Alterini R, Carrai V, Nassi L, Bernardi F, Pieroni E, Bosi A (2005) 18FDG-positron emission tomography in post treatment evaluation of residual mass in Hodgkin’s lymphoma: long term results. Oncol Rep 14:1209–1214PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gallamini A, Rigacci L, Merli F, Nassi L, Bosi A, Capodanno I, Luminari S, Vitolo U, Sancetta R, Iannitto E, Trentin L, Stelitano C, Tavera S, Bigi A, Castagnoli A, Versari A, Gregianin M, Pelosi E, Torchio P, Levis A (2006) The predictive value of positron emission tomography scanning performed after two courses of standard therapy on treatment outcome in advanced stage Hodgkin’s disease. Haematologica 91:475–481PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hutchings M, Loft A, Hansen M, Pedersen LM, Buhl T, Jurlander J, Buus S, Keiding S, D’Amore F, Boesen AM, Berthelsen AK, Specht L (2006) FDG-PET after two cycles of chemotherapy predicts treatment failure and progression-free survival in Hodgkin lymphoma. Blood 107:52–59PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Delbeke D, Martin WH, Morgan DS, Kinney MC, Feurer I, Kovalsky E, Arrowsmith T, Greer JP (2002) 2-deoxy-2-[F-18]fluoro-D-glucose imaging with positron emission tomography for initial staging of Hodgkin’s disease and lymphoma. Mol Imaging Biol 4:105–114PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jerusalem G, Beguin Y, Fassotte MF, Najjar F, Paulus P, Rigo P, Fillet G (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
  12. 12.
    Munker R, Glass J, Griffeth LK, Sattar T, Zamani R, Heldmann M, Shi R, Lilien DL (2004) Contribution of PET imaging to the initial staging and prognosis of patients with Hodgkin’s disease. Ann Oncol 15:1699–1704PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Naumann R, Beuthien-Baumann B, Reiss A, Schulze J, Hanel A, Bredow J, Kuhnel G, Hanel M, Laniado M, Kotzerke J, Ehninger G (2004) Substantial impact of FDG PET imaging on the therapy decision in patients with early-stage Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Br J Cancer 90:620–625PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Partridge S, Timothy A, O’Doherty MJ, Hain SF, Rankin S, Mikhaeel G (2000) 2-Fluorine-18-fluoro-2-deoxy-D glucose positron emission tomography in the pretreatment staging of Hodgkin’s disease: influence on patient management in a single institution. Ann Oncol 11:1273–1279PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Raanani P, Shasha Y, Perry C, Metser U, Naparstek E, Apter S, Nagler A, Polliack A, Ben-Bassat I, Even-Sapir E (2006) Is CT scan still necessary for staging in Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients in the PET/CT era. Ann Oncol 17:117–122PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schaefer NG, Hany TF, Taverna C, Seifert B, Stumpe KD, von Schulthess GK (2004) Non-Hodgkin lymphoma and Hodgkin disease: coregistered FDG PET and CT at staging and restaging-do we need contrast-enhanced CT. Radiology 232:823–829PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    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
  18. 18.
    Hutchings M, Loft A, Hansen M, Pedersen LM, Berthelsen AK, Keiding S, D’Amore F, Boesen AM, Roemer L, Specht L (2006) Positron emission tomography with or without computed tomography in the primary staging of Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Haematologica 91:482–489PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Carr R, Barrington SF, Madan B, O’Doherty MJ, Saunders CA, van der Walt J, Timothy AR (1998) Detection of lymphoma in bone marrow by whole body positron emission tomography. Blood 91:3340–3346PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pakos EE, Fotopoulos A, Ioannidis JP (2005) 18F-FDG PET for evaluation of bone marrow infiltration in staging of lymphoma: a meta-analysis. J Nucl Med 46:958–963PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kaplan LD (2002) Fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography for lymphoma: incorporating new technology into clinical care. Am J Med 112:262–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kumar R, Maillard I, Schuster SJ, Alavi A (2004) Utility of fluorodeoxyglucose-PET imaging in the management of patients with Hodgkin’s and non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas. Radiol Clin North Am 42:1083–1100PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Isasi CR, Lu P, Blaufox MD (2005) A metaanalysis of 18F-2-deoxy-2-fluoro-D-glucose positron emission tomography in the staging and restaging of patients with lymphoma. Cancer 104:1066–1074PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cheson BD, Pfistner B, Juweid ME, Gascoyne RD, Specht L, Horning SJ, Coiffier B, Fisher RI, Hagenbeek A, Zucca E, Rosen ST, Stroobants S, Lister TA, Hoppe RT, Dreyling M, Tobinai K, Vose JM, Connors JM, Federico M, Dihel V (2007) Revised response criteria for malignant lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 25:579–586PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luigi Rigacci
    • 1
    • 7
  • Umberto Vitolo
    • 2
  • Luca Nassi
    • 1
  • Francesco Merli
    • 3
  • Andrea Gallamini
    • 4
  • Patrizia Pregno
    • 2
  • Isabel Alvarez
    • 3
  • Flavia Salvi
    • 5
  • Rosaria Sancetta
    • 6
  • Antonio Castagnoli
    • 1
  • Annibale Versari
    • 3
  • Alberto Biggi
    • 4
  • Michele Gregianin
    • 6
  • Ettore Pelosi
    • 2
  • Teodoro Chisesi
    • 6
  • Alberto Bosi
    • 1
  • Alessandro Levis
    • 5
  • On behalf of Intergruppo Italiano Linfomi
  1. 1.Hematology and Nuclear MedicineCareggi Hospital and University of FlorenceFlorenceItaly
  2. 2.Hematology and Nuclear MedicineHospital S. Giovanni BattistaTurinItaly
  3. 3.Hematology and Nuclear MedicineArcispedale S. Maria NuovaReggio EmiliaItaly
  4. 4.Hematology and Nuclear MedicineHospital S. Croce e` CarleCuneoItaly
  5. 5.HematologyHospital SS. Antonio e BiagioAlessandriaItaly
  6. 6.Hematology and Nuclear MedicineHospital SS. Giovanni e PaoloVeniceItaly
  7. 7.Department of HematologyUniversity of FlorenceFlorenceItaly

Personalised recommendations