FDG PET/CT Response Assessment Criteria for Patients with Hodgkin’s and Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma at End of Therapy: A Multiparametric Approach
- 189 Downloads
Based on the International Harmonization Project (IHP) criteria, positron emission tomography (PET) response assessment of residual nodal masses in patients with lymphoma after completion of therapy is performed visually using mediastinal blood pool as the reference. The primary objective of this study was to define the optimal reference for PET response assessment. Secondary aim was to assess if morphological criteria on computed tomography (CT) may improve performance of PET.
This institutional review board approved retrospective study included 137 patients, with Hodgkin’s (n = 43) or non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (n = 94) assessed for residual masses (n = 180) after completion of therapy with pathology and clinical and imaging surveillance data (mean, 19 months) as the standard of reference. Two readers independently assessed response by IHP and Deauville criteria. The addition of morphological parameters on CT was assessed in relation to therapy response.
Based on the standard of reference, 36 patients (26.3 %) had residual lymphoma. For IHP and Deauville criteria, sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were 97.2 %, 97.2 % (p = 1); 79.2 %, 92.1 % (p < 0.001); and 83.9 %, 93.4 % (p = 0.001), respectively. Of the morphological parameters assessed, only change in size over course of therapy was significant (p < 0.003) and improved specificity for IHP-based interpretation to 90.4 % (p = 0.008).
Using liver as the visual reference to determine PET positivity for lymphoma patients being assessed for residual masses at the end of therapy improves specificity, yet maintains the high sensitivity of PET in identifying residual disease. The addition of change in size after therapy improves specificity of PET when using IHP-based but not Deauville-based interpretation.
KeywordsFluorodeoxyglucose F18 Positron emission tomography Computed tomography Lymphoma Therapy Response
This manuscript has not been published before, is not under consideration for publication anywhere else and has been approved by all co-authors.
Conflict of Interest
All authors (Ur Metser, Ravi Mohan, Vaughan Beckley, Hadas Moshonov, David Hodgson, and Grainne Murphy) declare that they have no conflict of interest.
This retrospective study was approved by the institution’s Research Ethics Board (approval no. 13-6496-CE) and written informed consent from patients was waived. The study was performed in accordance with the ethical standards of the institution. The institutional research ethics board operates in compliance with the Tri-Council Policy Statement and the ICH guidelines for the Good Clinical Practice E6(R1).
- 3.Juweid ME, Stroobants S, Hoekstra OS, Mottaghy FM, Dietlein M, Guermazi A, et al. Use of positron emission tomography for response assessment of lymphoma: consensus of the Imaging Subcommittee of International Harmonization Project in Lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:571–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 4.Juweid M, Wiseman GA, Vose JM, Ritchie JM, Menda Y, Wooldridge JE, et al. Response assessment of aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma by integrated International Workshop criteria (IWC) and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (PET). J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:4652–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 6.Spaepen K, Stroobants S, Dupont P, Van Steenweghen S, Thomas J, Vandenberghe P, et al. Prognostic value of positron emission tomography (PET) with fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose ([18F]FDG) after first-line chemotherapy in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: Is [18F]FDG-PET a valid alternative to conventional diagnostic methods? J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:414–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 7.Spaepen K, Stroobants S, Dupont P, Vandenberghe P, Maertens J, Bormans G, 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. Blood. 2003;102:53–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 10.Jerusalem G, Beguin Y, Fassotte MF, Najjar F, Paulus P, Rigo P, et al. 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. 1999;94:429–33.Google Scholar
- 12.Jerusalem G, Warland V, Najjar F, Paulus P, Fassotte MF, Fillet G, et al. Whole-body 18F-FDG PET for the evaluation of patients with Hodgkin’s disease and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Nucl Med Commun. 1999;20:13–20.Google Scholar
- 20.Olsen K, Sohi J, Abraham T, Juweid M. Initial validation of standardized qualitative (visual) criteria for FDG-PET assessment of residual masses following lymphoma therapy. Radiological Society of North America 92nd Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting Program, 2006, pp 323 (abstract 55:E23-02).Google Scholar
- 25.Itti E, Meignan M, Berriolo-Riedinger A, Biggi A, Cashen AF, Véra P, et al. An international confirmatory study of the prognostic value of early PET/CT in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: comparison between Deauville criteria and ΔSUVmax. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:1312–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 26.Dupuis J, Berriolo-Riedinger A, Julian A, Brice P, Tychyj-Pinel C, Tilly H, et al. Impact of [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography response evaluation in patients with high-tumor burden follicular lymphoma treated with immunochemotherapy: a prospective study from the Groupe d’Etudes des Lymphomes de l’Adulte and GOELAMS. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:4317–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 27.Manohar K, Mittal BR, Raja S, Bhattacharya A, Malhotra P, Varma S. Comparison of various criteria in interpreting end of therapy F-18 labeled fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Leuk Lymphoma. 2013;54:714–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 28.Kajáry K, Molnár Z, Györke T, Szakáll Jr S, Molnár P, Lengyel Z. Comparison of the International Harmonization Project, London and Gallamini criteria in the interpretation of 18F-FDG PET/CT examinations after first-line treatment in Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Nucl Med Commun. 2014;35:169–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar