Medical Oncology

, Volume 28, Issue 4, pp 1570–1576 | Cite as

Prognostic significance of the standardized uptake value of pre-therapeutic 18F-FDG PET in patients with malignant lymphoma

  • Hossein Ahmadzadehfar
  • Margarida Rodrigues
  • Rasoul Zakavi
  • Peter Knoll
  • Siroos Mirzaei
Original paper


Metabolic imaging with F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) positron-emission tomography (PET) is widely used for staging and treatment evaluation of malignant lymphoma. To date, only a few studies have indicated that lower glucose metabolism measured by 18F-FDG PET before or early in the course of treatment of malignant lymphoma is associated with a favorable outcome. The aim of this study was to assess the prognostic capability of the 18F-FDG PET maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax), a semiquantitative measurement of glucose metabolism, at the time of diagnosis of malignant lymphoma. We retrospectively analyzed data from 69 patients (median age: 61 and range 23–80) with malignant lymphoma (22 patients with Hodgkin’s disease [HD] and 47 patients with Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma [NHL]) who had not received treatment before 18F-FDG PET imaging. Metabolic remission according to PET results was observed after chemotherapy in 50 patients (72.5%), while progressive disease or relapse was diagnosed in 19 patients (27.5%). Clinical follow-up revealed relapse in 4/50 patients with prior metabolic remission. A significantly lower (P < 0.01) baseline SUVmax level (median: 4.6 and range 1.5–12.9) was found in patients with subsequent metabolic and clinical response than in those with progressive or relapsing disease (median SUVmax 10.4, range 2.0–17.9). Thirty-seven of thirty-nine patients with baseline SUVmax < 7.4 achieved long-lasting remission after completion of chemotherapy (median follow-up: 28 months, range 4–112 months). Within this group with favorable outcome, there were no significant differences between SUVmax values in HD and NHL. A heterogeneous outcome was noted in 25 patients with a SUVmax ≥ 7.4 and ≤ 12.9 at diagnosis, with 16 patients experiencing disease progression or relapse and nine patients extended remission. The five patients with SUVmax > 12.9 showed disease progression at follow-up. Semiquantitative measurement of glucose metabolism (SUVmax) by 18F-FDG PET at diagnosis is a predictor of outcome of patients with malignant lymphoma.


FDG PET SUV Lymphoma Prognostic 



We thank Jane Neuda for editorial review of the manuscript.


  1. 1.
    Hasenclever D, Diehl V. A prognostic score for advanced Hodgkin’s disease. N Engl J Med. 1998;339:1506–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sehn LH, Berry B, Chhanabhai M, 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;109:1857–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    The International non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Prognostic Factors Project. A predictive model for aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. N Engl J Med. 1993;329:987–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rosenwald A, Wright G, Chan WC, et al. The use of molecular profiling to predict survival after chemotherapy for diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:1937–47.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lenz G, Wright GW, Emre NC, et al. Molecular subtypes of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma arise by distinct genetic pathways. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2008;105:13520–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baggetto LG. Deviant energetic metabolism of glycolytic cancer cells. Biochemie. 1992;74:959–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Flier JS, Mueckler MM, Usher P, Lodish HF. Elevated levels of glucose transport and transporter messenger RNA are induced by ras or src oncogenes. Science. 1987;235:1492–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Isselbacher KJ. Sugar and amino acid transport by cells in culture: differences between normal and malignant cells. N Engl J Med. 1972;286:929–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Warburg O. The metabolism of tumors. New York: Richard R Smith, Inc.; 1931.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Erasmus JJ, McAdams HP, Patz EF Jr, et al. Evaluation of primary pulmonary carcinoid tumors using FDG PET. Am J Roentgenol. 1998;170:1369–73.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rivenzon-Segal D, Rushkin E, Polak-Charcon S, Degani H. Glucose transporters and transport kinetics in retinoic acid-differentiated T47D human breast cancer cells. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2000;279:E508–19.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schlüter B, Bohuslavizki KH, Beyer W, et al. Impact of FDG PET on patients with differentiated thyroid cancer who present with elevated thyroglobulin and negative 131I scan. J Nucl Med. 2001;42:71–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Younes M, Brown RW, Mody DR, et al. GLUT1 expression in human breast carcinoma: correlation with known prognostic markers. Anticancer Res. 1995;15:2895–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Higashi K, Ueda Y, Seki H, et al. Fluorine-18-FDG PET imaging is negative in bronchioloalveolar lung carcinoma. J Nucl Med. 1998;39:1016–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gallagher BM, Fowler JS, Gutterson NE. Metabolic trapping as a principle of radiopharmaceutical design: some factors responsible for the biodistribution of [18 F] 2-deoxy-2-fluoro-d-glucose. J Nucl Med. 1978;19:1154–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gambhir SS, Czernin J, Schwimmer J, et al. A tabulated summary of the FDG PET literature. J Nucl Med. 2001;42:1–93.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Huang SC. Anatomy of SUV. Nucl Med Biol. 2000;27:643–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cohen MS, Arslan N, Dehdashti F, et al. Risk of malignancy in thyroid incidentalomas identified by fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography. Surgery. 2001;130:941–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dimitrakopoulou-Stauss A, Strauss LG, Rudi J. PET-FDG as predictor of therapy response in patients with colorectal carcinoma. Q J Nucl Med. 2003;47:8–13.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lapela M, Grenman R, Kurki T, et al. Head and neck cancer: detection of recurrence with PET and 2-[F-18]fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose. Radiology. 1995;197:205–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lapela M, Leskinen S, Minn HR, et al. Increased glucose metabolism in untreated non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: a study with positron emission tomography and fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose. Blood. 1995;86:3522–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schöder H, Noy A, Gönen M, et al. Intensity of 18-fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in positron emission tomography distinguishes between indolent and aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2005;21:4643–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rodriguez M, Rehn S, Ahlstrom H, et al. Predicting malignancy grade with PET in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. J Nucl Med. 1995;36:1790–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wong RJ, Lin DT, Schöder H, et al. Diagnostic and prognostic value of [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography for recurrent head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:4199–208.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Eary JF, O’Sullivan F, Powitan Y, et al. Sarcoma tumor FDG uptake measured by PET and patient outcome: a retrospective analysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2002;29:1149–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fukunaga T, Okazumi S, Koide Y, et al. Evaluation of esophageal cancers using fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose PET. J Nucl Med. 1998;39:1002–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nakata B, Chung YS, Nishimura S, et al. 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and the prognosis of patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Cancer. 1997;79:695–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Vansteenkiste JF, Stroobants SG, Dupont PJ, et al. Prognostic importance of the standardized uptake value on (18) F-fluoro-2-deoxy-glucose-positron emission tomography scan in non-small-cell lung cancer: an analysis of 125 cases. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:3201–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Woodard H, Bigler R, Freed B, et al. Expression of tissue isotope distribution. J Nucl Med. 1975;16:958–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cremerius U, Fabry U, Neuerburg J, et al. Prognostic significance of positron emission tomography using fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose in patients treated for malignant lymphoma. Nucl Med. 2001;40:23–30.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kostakoglu L, Agress H, Goldsmith SJ. Clinical role of FDG PET in evaluation of cancer patients. RadioGraphics. 2003;23:315–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Schaefer NG, Taveran C, Strobel K, et al. Hodgkin disease: diagnostic value of FDG PET/CT after first-line therapy—is biopsy of FDG-avid lesions still needed? Radiology. 2007;244:257–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Spaepen K, Stroobants S, Dupont P, et al. Prognostic value of pretransplantation positron emission tomography using fluorine 18-fluorodeoxyglucose in patients with aggressive lymphoma treated with high-dose chemotherapy and stem cell transplantation. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003;30:682–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Suh C, Kang YK, Roh JL, et al. Prognostic value of tumor 18F-FDG uptake in patients with untreated extranodal natural killer/T-cell lymphoma of the head and neck. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:1783–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ong L, Song I, Yu S, et al. 2-[18F]-2-deoxy-d-glucose (FDG) uptake in human tumor cells is related to the expression of GLUT-1 and hexokinase II. Acta Radiol. 2008;49:1145–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Boellaard R, Oyen WJ, Hoekstra CJ, et al. The Netherlands protocol for standardisation and quantification of FDG whole body PET studies in multi-centre trials. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;35:2320–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lin C, Itti E, Haioun C, et al. Early prediction of 18F-FDG PET for prediction of prognosis in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma; SUV-based assessment versus visal analysis. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:1626–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Itti E, Lin C, Dupuis J, et al. Prognostic value of interim 18F-FDG PET in patients with diffuse large B-Cell lymphoma: SUV-based assessment at 4 cycles of chemotherapy. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:527–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hossein Ahmadzadehfar
    • 1
  • Margarida Rodrigues
    • 1
  • Rasoul Zakavi
    • 2
  • Peter Knoll
    • 1
  • Siroos Mirzaei
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Nuclear Medicine with PET-Centre, WilhelminenspitalViennaAustria
  2. 2.Nuclear Medicine Research CenterMashhad University of Medical SciencesMashhadIran

Personalised recommendations