Role of WB-MR/DWIBS compared to 18F-FDG PET/CT in the therapy response assessment of lymphoma
- 422 Downloads
This study prospectively evaluated whole-body magnetic resonance/diffusion-weighted imaging with body signal suppression (WB-MR/DWIBS) reliability compared to 18F-FDG PET/CT in the treatment response assessment of classic Hodgkin lymphomas (HL) and aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphomas (aNHL).
Materials and methods
Twenty-seven consecutive patients were prospectively enrolled at the time of diagnosis. Eighteen (11 HL and seven aNHL) were considered for the analysis. They received chemo/radiotherapy as induction and completed post-treatment evaluation performing both 18F-FDG PET/CT and WB-MR/DWIBS. The revised response criteria for malignant lymphomas were used to assess the response to treatment. We evaluated the agreement between the two methods by Cohen’s K test. Post-therapy WB-MR/DWIBS sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy were then calculated, considering the 12 months of follow-up period as the gold standard.
By using an evaluation on a lesion-by-lesion basis, WB-MR/DWIBS and 18F-FDG PET/CT showed an overall good agreement (K = 0.796, 95 % IC = 0.651–0.941), especially in the evaluation of the nodal basins in aNHL (K = 0.937, 95 % IC = 0.814–1). In reference to the revised response criteria for malignant lymphomas, the two methods showed a good agreement (K = 0.824, 95 % IC = 0.493–1). Post-therapy sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy of WB-MR/DWIBS were 43, 91, 75, 71 and 72 %, respectively.
WB-MR/DWIBS seems to be an appropriate method for the post-treatment assessment of patients affected by HL and aNHL. The small discrepancies between the two methods found within HL could be due to the biological and metabolic behavior of this group of diseases. Larger prospective studies are necessary to better define the role of WB-MR/DWIBS in this setting of patients.
KeywordsWB-MR/DWIBS 18F-FDG PET/CT Hodgkin lymphoma Non-Hodgkin lymphoma Therapy response Revised response criteria for malignant lymphoma
The authors would like to thank C. Oakley (National Cancer Research Centre “Giovanni Paolo II”, Bari, Italy) for linguistic revision of the manuscript.
No author has financial relationships to disclose.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
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 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 1.Wu X, Kellokumpu-Lehtinen PL, Pertovaara H, Korkola P, Soimakallio S, Eskola H et al (2011) Diffusion-weighted MRI in early chemotherapy response evaluation of patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma–a pilot study: comparison with 2-deoxy-2-fluoro- d-glucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography. NMR Biomed 24(10):1181–1190PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Ferrari C, Minoia C, Asabella AN, Nicoletti A, Altini C, Antonica F, Ficco M et al (2014) Whole body magnetic resonance with diffusion weighted sequence with body signal suppression compared to (18)F-FDG PET/CT in newly diagnosed lymphoma. Hell J Nucl Med 17Suppl(1):40–49Google Scholar
- 15.Juweid ME, Stroobants S, Hoekstra OS, Mottaghy FM, Dietlein M, Guermazi A et al (2007) Imaging Subcommittee of International Harmonization Project in Lymphoma. Use of positron emission tomography for response assessment of lymphoma: consensus of the Imaging Subcommittee of International Harmonization Project in Lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 25(5):571–578PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 29.Saboo SS, Krajewski KM, O’Regan KN et al (1009) Spleen in haematological malignancies: spectrum of imaging findings. Br J Radiol 2012(85):81–92Google Scholar