Advertisement

Pediatric Radiology

, Volume 48, Issue 5, pp 638–647 | Cite as

Can diffusion-weighted whole-body MRI replace contrast-enhanced CT for initial staging of Hodgkin lymphoma in children and adolescents?

  • Rodrigo Regacini
  • Andrea Puchnick
  • Flavio Augusto Vercillo Luisi
  • Henrique Manoel Lederman
Original Article

Abstract

Background

Although positron emission tomography with 18F–fluoro-2-deoxyglucose (FDG-PET/CT) has been recommended as the method of choice for lymphoma staging, it has limited availability in several countries, therefore, studies comparing whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to conventional staging methods or to FDG-PET/CT are an important tool to establish whole-body MRI as an alternative to these methods.

Objective

To compare whole-body MRI versus conventional imaging methods for staging of Hodgkin lymphoma in children and adolescents.

Materials and methods

The study included 22 patients ages 5 to 21 years. Staging was performed using conventional imaging methods and whole-body MRI. Conventional imaging methods were defined as computed tomography (CT) of the neck, chest, abdomen and pelvis and ultrasonography of the neck and/or abdomen. We calculated the sensitivity of these methods for Hodgkin lymphoma staging and their sensitivity and specificity for detecting sites of nodal and extranodal involvement.

Results

The sensitivity of whole-body MRI for Hodgkin lymphoma staging was superior to that of conventional imaging methods (95.5% vs. 86.4%, respectively), but both methods had similar sensitivity and specificity for detecting involvement of nodal sites (99.1% and 100% vs. 97.3% and 100%, respectively) and extranodal sites (90.5% and 98.7% vs. 90.5% and 99.4%, respectively).

Conclusion

Whole-body MRI has excellent sensitivity for staging of Hodgkin lymphoma in children and adolescents. It can thus be considered an alternative for this purpose, particularly because it does not expose patients to ionizing radiation.

Keywords

Children Computed tomography Diffusion-weighted imaging Hodgkin lymphoma Magnetic resonance imaging Whole-body imaging 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Connors JM (2005) State-of-the-art therapeutics: Hodgkin's lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 23:6400–6408CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lister TA, Crowther D, Sutcliffe SB et al (1989) Report of a committee convened to discuss the evaluation and staging of patients with Hodgkin's disease: Cotswolds meeting. J Clin Oncol 7:1630–1636CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cheson BD, Fisher RI, Barrington SF et al (2014) Recommendations for initial evaluation, staging, and response assessment of Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma: the Lugano classification. J Clin Oncol 32:3059–3068CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Vinnicombe SJ, Reznek RH (2003) Computerised tomography in the staging of Hodgkin's disease and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 30:S42–S55CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Balbo-Mussetto A, Cirillo S, Bruna R et al (2016) Whole-body MRI with diffusion-weighted imaging: a valuable alternative to contrast-enhanced CT for initial staging of aggressive lymphoma. Clin Radiol 71:271–279CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kostakoglu L, Evens AM (2014) FDG-PET imaging for Hodgkin lymphoma: current use and future applications. Clin Adv Hematol Oncol 12:20–35PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Huang B, Law MW, Khong PL (2009) Whole-body PET/CT scanning: estimation of radiation dose and cancer risk. Radiology 251:166–174CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Buck AK, Herrmann K, Stargardt T et al (2010) Economic evaluation of PET and PET/CT in oncology: evidence and methodologic approaches. J Nucl Med Technol 38:6–17CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gu J, Chan T, Zhang J et al (2011) Whole-body diffusion-weighted imaging: the added value to whole-body MRI at initial diagnosis of lymphoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 197:W384–W391CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Abdulqadhr G, Molin D, Astrom G et al (2011) Whole-body diffusion-weighted imaging compared with FDG-PET/CT in staging of lymphoma patients. Acta Radiol 52:173–180CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    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 20:2027–2038CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Punwani S, Taylor SA, Bainbridge A et al (2010) Pediatric and adolescent lymphoma: comparison of whole-body STIR half-Fourier RARE MR imaging with an enhanced PET/CT reference for initial staging. Radiology 255:182–190CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    van Ufford 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. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196:662–669CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wu X, Kellokumpu-Lehtinen PL, Pertovaara 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 24:1181–1190CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stephane V, Samuel B, Vincent D 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 82:2011–2017CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ferrari C, Minoia C, Asabella AN 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 17:40–49PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Littooij AS, Kwee TC, Barber I et al (2014) Whole-body MRI for initial staging of paediatric lymphoma: prospective comparison to an FDG-PET/CT-based reference standard. Eur Radiol 24:1153–1165CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tsuji K, Kishi S, Tsuchida T et al (2015) Evaluation of staging and early response to chemotherapy with whole-body diffusion-weighted MRI in malignant lymphoma patients: a comparison with FDG-PET/CT. J Magn Reson Imaging 41:1601–1607CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Montoro J, Laszlo D, Zing NP et al (2014) Comparison of whole-body diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance and FDG-PET/CT in the assessment of Hodgkin's lymphoma for staging and treatment response. Ecancermedicalscience 8:429CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hagtvedt T, Seierstad T, Lund KV et al (2015) Diffusion-weighted MRI compared to FDG PET/CT for assessment of early treatment response in lymphoma. Acta Radiol 56:152–158CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mayerhoefer ME, Karanikas G, Kletter K et al (2014) Evaluation of diffusion-weighted MRI for pretherapeutic assessment and staging of lymphoma: results of a prospective study in 140 patients. Clin Cancer Res 20:2984–2993CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Adams HJ, Kwee TC, Vermoolen MA et al (2013) Whole-body MRI for the detection of bone marrow involvement in lymphoma: prospective study in 116 patients and comparison with FDG-PET. Eur Radiol 23:2271–2278CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wu X, Pertovaara H, Korkola P 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:e84999CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Herrmann K, Queiroz M, Huellner MW et al (2015) Diagnostic performance of FDG-PET/MRI and WB-DW-MRI in the evaluation of lymphoma: a prospective comparison to standard FDG-PET/CT. BMC Cancer 15:1002CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kwee TC, Vermoolen MA, Akkerman EA et al (2014) Whole-body MRI, including diffusion-weighted imaging, for staging lymphoma: comparison with CT in a prospective multicenter study. J Magn Reson Imaging 40:26–36CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    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 185:711–716CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kwee TC, van Ufford HM, Beek FJ et al (2009) Whole-body MRI, including diffusion-weighted imaging, for the initial staging of malignant lymphoma: comparison to computed tomography. Investig Radiol 44:683–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kellenberger CJ, Miller SF, Khan M et al (2004) Initial experience with FSE STIR whole-body MR imaging for staging lymphoma in children. Eur Radiol 14:1829–1841CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kwee TC, Takahara T, Ochiai R et al (2008) Diffusion-weighted whole-body imaging with background body signal suppression (DWIBS): features and potential applications in oncology. Eur Radiol 18:1937–1952CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    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 22:275–282PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kwee TC, Takahara T, Vermoolen MA et al (2010) Whole-body diffusion-weighted imaging for staging malignant lymphoma in children. Pediatr Radiol 40:1592–1602CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Littooij AS, Kwee TC, Barber I et al (2016) Accuracy of whole-body MRI in the assessment of splenic involvement in lymphoma. Acta Radiol 57:142–151CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Haddy TB, Parker RI, Magrath IT (1989) Bone marrow involvement in young patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: the importance of multiple bone marrow samples for accurate staging. Med Pediatr Oncol 17:418–423CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Shields AF, Porter BA, Churchley S et al (1987) The detection of bone marrow involvement by lymphoma using magnetic resonance imaging. J Clin Oncol 5:225–230CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Tardivon AA, Munck JN, Shapeero LG et al (1995) Can clinical data help to screen patients with lymphoma for MR imaging of bone marrow? Ann Oncol 6:795–800CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ribrag V, Vanel D, Leboulleux S et al (2008) Prospective study of bone marrow infiltration in aggressive lymphoma by three independent methods: whole-body MRI, PET/CT and bone marrow biopsy. Eur J Radiol 66:325–331CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rodrigo Regacini
    • 1
  • Andrea Puchnick
    • 2
  • Flavio Augusto Vercillo Luisi
    • 3
  • Henrique Manoel Lederman
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Escola Paulista de MedicinaUniversidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP)São PauloBrazil
  2. 2.Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Educational and Research Support, Escola Paulista de MedicinaUniversidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP)São PauloBrazil
  3. 3.Department of Pediatrics, Division of Oncology, Escola Paulista de MedicinaUniversidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP)São PauloBrazil

Personalised recommendations