Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging

, Volume 52, Issue 5, pp 342–349 | Cite as

Application of Quantitative Indexes of FDG PET to Treatment Response Evaluation in Indolent Lymphoma

  • Hyun Joo Kim
  • Reeree Lee
  • Hongyoon Choi
  • Jin Chul PaengEmail author
  • Gi Jeong Cheon
  • Dong Soo Lee
  • June-Key Chung
  • Keon Wook Kang
Original Article



Although 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) is a standard imaging modality for response evaluation in FDG-avid lymphoma, there is a controversy using FDG PET in indolent lymphoma. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of quantitative indexes on FDG PET in response evaluation of the indolent lymphoma.


Fifty-seven indolent lymphoma patients who completed chemotherapy were retrospectively enrolled. FDG PET/computed tomography (CT) scans were performed at baseline, interim, and end of treatment (EOT). Response was determined by Lugano classification, and progression-free survival (PFS) by follow-up data. Maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax), metabolic tumor volume (MTV), and total lesion glycolysis (TLG) were measured in the single hottest lesion (target A) or five hottest lesions (target B). Their efficacies regarding response evaluation and PFS prediction were evaluated.


On EOT PET, SUVmax, and MTV of both targets were well associated with visual analysis. Changes between initial and EOT PET were not significantly different between CR and non-CR groups. On interim PET, SUVmax, and %ΔSUVmax in both targets were significantly different between CR and non-CR groups. For prediction of PFS, most tested indexes were significant on EOT and interim PET, with SUVmax being the most significant prognostic factor.


Quantitative indexes of FDG PET are well associated with Lugano classification in indolent lymphoma. SUVmax measured in the single hottest lesion can be effective in response evaluation and prognosis prediction on interim and EOT PET.


Indolent lymphoma 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) Response evaluation 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Hyun Joo Kim, Reeree Lee, Hongyoon Choi, Jin Chul Paeng, Gi Jeong Cheon, Dong Soo Lee, June-Key Chung, and Keon Wook Kang declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures followed were performed in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2013.

Informed Consent

The study design of the retrospective analysis and exemption of informed consent were approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Seoul National University Hospital (H-1703-108-840). This manuscript has not been published before or is not under consideration for publication anywhere else and has been approved by all co-authors.


  1. 1.
    Cheson BD, Fisher RI, Barrington SF, Cavalli F, Schwartz LH, Zucca E, et al. Recommendations for initial evaluation, staging, and response assessment of Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma: the Lugano classification. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:3059–68.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cheson BD. Staging and response assessment in lymphomas: the new Lugano classification. Chin Clin Oncol. 2015;4:5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cheson BD, Ansell S, Schwartz L, Gordon LI, Advani R, Jacene HA, et al. Refinement of the Lugano classification lymphoma response criteria in the era of immunomodulatory therapy. Blood. 2016;128:2489–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gallamini A, Borra A. FDG-PET scan: a new paradigm for follicular lymphoma management. Mediterr J Hematol Infect Dis. 2017;9:e2017029.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Metser U, Dudebout J, Baetz T, Hodgson DC, Langer DL, MacCrostie P, et al. [(18) F]-FDG PET/CT in the staging and management of indolent lymphoma: a prospective multicenter PET registry study. Cancer. 2017;123:2860–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Smith SD, Redman M, Dunleavy KFDG. PET-CT in follicular lymphoma: a case-based evidence review. Blood. 2015;125:1078–82.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Metser U, Hussey D, Murphy G. Impact of (18)F-FDG PET/CT on the staging and management of follicular lymphoma. Br J Radiol. 2014;87:20140360.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ciobanu A, Stanca O, Triantafyllidis I, Lupu A. Indolent lymphoma: diagnosis and prognosis in medical practice. Maedica (Buchar). 2013;8:338–42.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bodet-Milin C, Eugene T, Gastinne T, Frampas E, Le Gouill S, Kraeber-Bodere F. FDG-PET in follicular lymphoma management. J Oncol. 2012;2012:370272.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Le Dortz L, De Guibert S, Bayat S, Devillers A, Houot R, Rolland Y, et al. Diagnostic and prognostic impact of 18F-FDG PET/CT in follicular lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:2307–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Weiler-Sagie M, Bushelev O, Epelbaum R, Dann EJ, Haim N, Avivi I, et al. (18)F-FDG avidity in lymphoma readdressed: a study of 766 patients. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:25–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    JH O, Lodge MA, Wahl RL. Practical PERCIST: a simplified guide to PET response criteria in solid tumors 1.0. Radiology. 2016;280:576–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    van Persijn van Meerten EL, Gelderblom H, Bloem JL. RECIST revised: implications for the radiologist. A review article on the modified RECIST guideline. Eur Radiol. 2010;20:1456–67.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hutchings M, Barrington SF. PET/CT for therapy response assessment in lymphoma. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(Suppl 1):21S–30S.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hosein PJ, Lossos IS. The evolving role of F-FDG PET scans in patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Eur J Clin Med Oncol. 2010;2:131–8.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Metser U, Mohan R, Beckley V, Moshonov H, Hodgson D, Murphy G. FDG PET/CT response assessment criteria for patients with Hodgkin's and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma at end of therapy: a multiparametric approach. Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;50:46–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Johnson SA, Kumar A, Matasar MJ, Schoder H, Rademaker J. Imaging for staging and response assessment in lymphoma. Radiology. 2015;276:323–38.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ngeow JY, Quek RH, Ng DC, Hee SW, Tao M, Lim LC, et al. High SUV uptake on FDG-PET/CT predicts for an aggressive B-cell lymphoma in a prospective study of primary FDG-PET/CT staging in lymphoma. Ann Oncol. 2009;20:1543–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kobe C, Dietlein M, Hellwig D. PET/CT for lymphoma post-therapy response assessment in Hodgkin lymphoma and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Semin Nucl Med. 2018;48:28–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Karls S, Shah H, Jacene H. PET/CT for lymphoma post-therapy response assessment in other lymphomas, response assessment for autologous stem cell transplant, and lymphoma follow-up. Semin Nucl Med. 2018;48:37–49.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Carrillo-Cruz E, Marin-Oyaga VA, de la Cruz Vicente F, Borrego-Dorado I, Ruiz Mercado M, Acevedo Banez I, et al. Role of 18F-FDG-PET/CT in the management of marginal zone B cell lymphoma. Hematol Oncol. 2015;33:151–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Albano D, Giubbini R, Bertagna F. 18F-FDG PET/CT in splenic marginal zone lymphoma. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2018. Scholar
  23. 23.
    Khong PL, Huang B, Lee EY, Chan WK, Kwong YL. Midtreatment (1)(8)F-FDG PET/CT scan for early response assessment of SMILE therapy in natural killer/T-cell lymphoma: a prospective study from a single center. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:911–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Seam P, Juweid ME, Cheson BD. The role of FDG-PET scans in patients with lymphoma. Blood. 2007;110:3507–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Esfahani SA, Heidari P, Halpern EF, Hochberg EP, Palmer EL, Mahmood U. Baseline total lesion glycolysis measured with (18)F-FDG PET/CT as a predictor of progression-free survival in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: a pilot study. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;3:272–81.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chang Y, Fu X, Sun Z, Xie X, Wang R, Li Z, et al. Utility of baseline, interim and end-of-treatment (18)F-FDG PET/CT in extranodal natural killer/T-cell lymphoma patients treated with L-asparaginase/pegaspargase. Sci Rep. 2017;7:41057.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cheson BD, Kostakoglu L. FDG-PET for early response assessment in lymphomas. Part 1—Hodgkin lymphoma. Oncology (Williston Park). 2017;31:45–9.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Safar V, Dupuis J, Itti E, Jardin F, Fruchart C, Bardet S, et al. Interim [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography scan in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma treated with anthracycline-based chemotherapy plus rituximab. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:184–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Casasnovas RO, Meignan M, Berriolo-Riedinger A, Bardet S, Julian A, Thieblemont C, et al. SUVmax reduction improves early prognosis value of interim positron emission tomography scans in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Blood. 2011;118:37–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Liao CC, Qin YY, Tan XH, Hu JJ, Tang Q, Rong Y, et al. Predictive value of interim PET/CT visual interpretation in the prognosis of patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Onco Targets Ther. 2017;10:5727–38.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Cheson BD, Kostakoglu L. FDG-PET for early response assessment in lymphomas. Part 2—diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, Use of Quantitative PET Evaluation. Oncology (Williston Park). 2017;31:71–6.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lin C, Itti E, Haioun C, Petegnief Y, Luciani A, Dupuis J, et al. Early 18F-FDG PET for prediction of prognosis in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: SUV-based assessment versus visual analysis. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:1626–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Korean Society of Nuclear Medicine 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hyun Joo Kim
    • 1
  • Reeree Lee
    • 1
  • Hongyoon Choi
    • 1
  • Jin Chul Paeng
    • 1
    Email author
  • Gi Jeong Cheon
    • 1
  • Dong Soo Lee
    • 1
  • June-Key Chung
    • 1
  • Keon Wook Kang
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Nuclear MedicineSeoul National University HospitalSeoulSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations