Advertisement

La radiologia medica

, Volume 121, Issue 2, pp 132–143 | Cite as

Role of WB-MR/DWIBS compared to 18F-FDG PET/CT in the therapy response assessment of lymphoma

  • Nicola MaggialettiEmail author
  • Cristina Ferrari
  • Carla Minoia
  • Artor Niccoli Asabella
  • Michele Ficco
  • Giacomo Loseto
  • Giacomina De Tullio
  • Vincenza de Fazio
  • Angela Calabrese
  • Attilio Guarini
  • Giuseppe Rubini
  • Luca Brunese
DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING IN ONCOLOGY

Abstract

Introduction

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.

Results

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.

Conclusion

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.

Keywords

WB-MR/DWIBS 18F-FDG PET/CT Hodgkin lymphoma Non-Hodgkin lymphoma Therapy response Revised response criteria for malignant lymphoma 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank C. Oakley (National Cancer Research Centre “Giovanni Paolo II”, Bari, Italy) for linguistic revision of the manuscript.

Funding

No author has financial relationships to disclose.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

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 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 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
  2. 2.
    Antoch G, Vogt FM, Freudenberg LS, Nazaradeh F, Goehde SC, Barkhausen J et al (2003) Wholebody dual-modality PET/CT and whole-body MRI for tumor staging in oncology. J Am Med Assoc 290:3199–3206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cheson BD, Horning SJ, Coiffier B, Shipp MA, Fisher RI, Connors JM 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(4):1244PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cheson BD, Pfistner B, Juweid ME et al (2007) Revised response criteria for malignant lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 25(5):579–586PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wu X, Pertovaara H, Korkola P, Dastidar P, Järvenpää R, Eskola H et al (2014) Correlations between functional imaging markers derived from PET/CT and diffusion-weighted MRI in diffuse large B-Cell lymphoma and follicular lymphoma. PLoS One 9(1):e84999PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zink D, Fischer AH, Nickerson JA (2004) Nuclear structure in cancer cells. Nat Rev Cancer 4:677–687PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Takahara T, Imai Y, Yamashita T et al (2004) Diffusion weighted whole body imaging with background body signal suppression (DWIBS): technical improvement using free breathing, STIR and high resolution 3D display. Radiat Med 22(4):275–282PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brennan DD, Gleeson T, Coate LE et al (2005) A comparison of whole-body MRI and CT for the staging of lymphoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 185(3):711–716PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kwee TC, Kwee RM, Nievelstein RA (2008) Imaging in staging of malignant lymphoma: a systematic review. Blood 111(2):504–516PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Punwani S, Taylor SA, Saad ZZ, Bainbridge A, Groves A, Daw S et al (2013) Diffusion-weighted MRI of lymphoma: prognostic utility and implications for PET/MRI? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 40(3):373–385PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Marzolini M, Wong WL, Ardeshna K, Padhani A, D’Sa S (2012) Diffusion-weighted MRI compared to FDG PET-CT in the staging and response assessment of Hodgkin lymphoma. Br J Haematol 156(5):557PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chen Y, Zhong J, Wu H, Chen N (2012) The clinical application of whole-body diffusion-weighted imaging in the early assessment of chemotherapeutic effects in lymphoma: the initial experience. Magn Reson Imaging 30(2):165–170PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lin C, Luciani A, Itti E et al (2010) Whole-body diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging with apparent diffusion coefficient mapping for staging patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Eur Radiol 20(8):2027–2038PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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. 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
  16. 16.
    De Paepe K, Bevernage C, De Keyzer F, Wolter P, Gheysens O, Janssens A et al (2013) Whole-body diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging at 3 Tesla for early assessment of treatment response in non-Hodgkin lymphoma: a pilot study. Cancer Imaging 13:53–62PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kostakoglu L, Cheson BD (2013) State-of-the-art research on lymphomas: role of molecular imaging for staging, prognostic evaluation, and treatment response. Front Oncol 3:212PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Komori T, Narabayashi I, Matsumura K et al (2007) 2-[Fluorine-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography computed tomography versus whole-body diffusion-weighted MRI for detection of malignant lesions: initial experience. J Ann Nucl Med 21:209–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nakanishi K, Kobayashi M, Nakaguchi K et al (2007) Whole-body MRI for detecting metastatic bone tumor: diagnostic value of diffusion weighted images. J Megn Reson Med Sci 6(3):147–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ohno Y, Koyama H, Onishi Y et al (2008) Non-small cell lung cancer: whole-body MR examination for M-stage assessment—utility for whole-body diffusion-weighted imaging compared with integrated FDG PET/CT. J Radiol 248:643–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cui Y, Zhang XP, Sun YS et al (2008) Apparent diffusion coefficient: potential imaging biomarker for prediction and early detection of response to chemotherapy in hepatic metastases. J Radiol 248(3):894–900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Barajas RF Jr, Rubenstein JL, Chang JS, Hwang J, Cha S (2010) Diffusion-weighted MR imaging derived apparent diffusion coefficient is predictive of clinical outcome in primary central nervous system lymphoma. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 31(1):60–66PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gu J, Chan T, Zhang J, Leung AY, Kwong YL, Khong PL (2011) Whole body diffusion-weighted imaging: the added value to whole-body MRI at initial diagnosis of lymphoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 197(3):W384–W391PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Abdulqadhr G, Molin D, Aström G et al (2011) Whole-body diffusion-weighted imaging compared with FDG-PET/CT in staging of lymphoma patients. Acta Radiol 52(2):173–180PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    vanUfford HM, Kwee TC, Beek FJ et al (2011) Newly diagnosed lymphoma: initial results with whole-body T1-weighted, STIR, and diffusion-weighted MRI compared with 18F-FDG PET/CT (2011). AJR Am J Roentgenol 196(3):662–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Stéphane V, Samuel B, Vincent D, Joelle G, Remy P, Francois GG et al (2013) Comparison of PET-CT and magnetic resonance diffusion weighted imaging with body suppression (DWIBS) for initial staging of malignant lymphomas. Eur J Radiol 82(11):2011–2017PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ciliberto M, Maggi F, Treglia G, Padovano F, Calandriello L, Giordano A et al (2013) Comparison between whole-body MRI and Fluorine-18-Fluorodeoxyglucose PET or PET/CT in oncology: a systematic review. Radiol Oncol 47(3):206–218PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kwee TC, Takahara T, Ochiai R et al (2010) Complementary roles of whole-body diffusion-weighted MRI and 18F-FDG PET: the state of the art and potential applications. J Nucl Med 51(10):1549–1558PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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
  30. 30.
    Eberle FC, Mani H, Jaffe ES (2009) Histopathology of Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Cancer J 15(2):129–137PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Italian Society of Medical Radiology 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicola Maggialetti
    • 1
    Email author
  • Cristina Ferrari
    • 3
  • Carla Minoia
    • 2
  • Artor Niccoli Asabella
    • 3
  • Michele Ficco
    • 4
  • Giacomo Loseto
    • 2
  • Giacomina De Tullio
    • 2
  • Vincenza de Fazio
    • 2
  • Angela Calabrese
    • 4
  • Attilio Guarini
    • 2
  • Giuseppe Rubini
    • 3
  • Luca Brunese
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Medicine and Health ScienceUniversity of MoliseCampobassoItaly
  2. 2.Department of Medical and Experimental OncologyIRCCS National Cancer Research Centre “Giovanni Paolo II”BariItaly
  3. 3.D.I.M.- Diagnostic Imaging – Nuclear MedicineUniversity of Bari “Aldo Moro”BariItaly
  4. 4.Department of RadiodiagnosticIRCCS National Cancer Research Centre “Giovanni Paolo II”BariItaly

Personalised recommendations