Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Nodal status of malignant lymphoma in pelvic and retroperitoneal lymphatic pathways: PET/CT

  • Published:
Abdominal Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Nodal involvement of abdominal lymphatic pathways occurs in a number of histologic subtypes of malignant lymphoma. The histologic diagnosis of abnormal uptake in abdominal lymphatic pathways includes mainly non-Hodgkin lymphoma with B-cell lineage and Hodgkin lymphoma. Initial involvement of pelvic and retroperitoneal lymphatic pathways can result from a variety of underlying non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: follicular lymphoma, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, marginal zone B-cell lymphoma of mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT) type, and mantle cell lymphoma. The diagnosis of these clinical entities requires various imaging techniques, including fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose (18FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT), computed tomography, 67Gallium scintigraphy, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Specific symptoms of these diseases are often lacking, but intense 18FDG accumulation on PET/CT may be a marker of disease activity. Interpretation of the presence of and the specific pattern of 18FDG uptake may obviate the need for invasive biopsy. However, distinction of abnormal uptake is often difficult to determine because focal accumulation of 18FDG in the urinary tract or intestine mimics nodal involvement in the pelvic and retroperitoneal lymphatic pathways. In this review, specific conditions causing nodal involvement of pelvic and retroperitoneal lymphatic pathways in patients with malignant lymphoma that may impact diagnostic and treatment decisions are highlighted.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jhanwar YS, Straus DJ. The role of PET in lymphoma. J Nucl Med 2006; 47:1326-1334

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Isasi CR, Lu P, Blaufox MD. A metaanalysis of 18F-2-deoxy-2-fluoro-D-glucose positron emission tomography in the staging and restaging of patients with lymphoma. Cancer 2005; 104:1066-1074

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hicks RJ, Mac Manus MP, Seymour JF. Initial staging of lymphoma with positron emission tomography and computed tomography. Semin Nucl Med 2005; 35:165-175

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Podoloff DA, Macapinlac HA. PET and PET/CT in management of the lymphomas. Radiol Clin North Am 2007; 45:689-696

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kumar R, Maillard I, Schuster SJ, Alavi A. Utility of fluorodeoxyglucose-PET imaging in the management of patients with Hodgkin’s and non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas. Radiol Clin North Am 2004; 42:1083-1100

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Burton C, Ell P, Linch D. The role of PET imaging in lymphoma. Br J Haematol 2004; 126:772-784

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ulaner GA, Colletti PM, Conti PS. B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma: PET/CT evaluation after 90Y-ibritumomab tiuxetan radioimmunotherapy–initial experience. Radiology 2008; 246:895-902

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hutchings M, Loft A, Hansen M, et al. FDG-PET after two cycles of chemotherapy predicts treatment failure and progression-free survival in Hodgkin lymphoma. Blood 2006; 107:52-59

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Beal KP, Yeung HW, Yahalom J. FDG-PET scanning for detection and staging of extranodal marginal zone lymphomas of the MALT type: a report of 42 cases. Ann Oncol 2005; 16:473-480

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Karam M, Novak L, Cyriac J, et al. Role of fluorine-18 fluoro-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography scan in the evaluation and follow-up of patients with low-grade lymphomas. Cancer 2006; 107:175-183

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kumar R, Xiu Y, Zhuang HM, Alavi A. 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography in evaluation of primary cutaneous lymphoma. Br J Dermatol 2006; 155:357-363

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Tsai EY, Taur A, Espinosa L, et al. Staging accuracy in mycosis fungoides and sezary syndrome using integrated positron emission tomography and computed tomography. Arch Dermatol 2006; 142:577-584

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Wohrer S, Jaeger U, Kletter K, et al.18F-fluoro-deoxy-glucose positron emission tomography (18F-FDG-PET) visualizes follicular lymphoma irrespective of grading. Ann Oncol 2006; 17:780-784

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ghersin E, Keidar Z, Eldad DJ, et al. Multimodality imaging of direct ureteric involvement in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma using PET/CT, CT urography and antegrade CT pyelography. Br J Radiol 2007; 80:e283-286

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Abouzied MM, Crawford ES, Nabi HA.18F-FDG imaging: pitfalls and artifacts. J Nucl Med Technol 2005; 33:145-155

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Vesselle HJ, Miraldi FD. FDG PET of the retroperitoneum: normal anatomy, variants, pathologic conditions, and strategies to avoid diagnostic pitfalls. Radiographics 1998; 18:805-823

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. von Schulthess GK, Steinert HC, Hany TF. Integrated PET/CT: current applications and future directions. Radiology 2006; 238:405-422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Allen-Auerbach M, Quon A, Weber WA, et al. Comparison between 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-D-glucose positron emission tomography and positron emission tomography/computed tomography hardware fusion for staging of patients with lymphoma. Mol Imaging Biol 2004; 6:411-416

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Freudenberg LS, Antoch G, Schutt P, et al. FDG-PET/CT in re-staging of patients with lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2004; 31:325-329

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Raanani P, Shasha Y, Perry C, et al. Is CT scan still necessary for staging in Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients in the PET/CT era? Ann Oncol 2006; 17:117-122

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Morimoto T, Tateishi U, Maeda T, et al. Nodal status of malignant lymphoma in pelvic and retroperitoneal lymphatic pathways: Comparison of integrated PET/CT with or without contrast enhancement. Eur J Radiol 2007; 67:508-513

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Vera P, Ouvrier MJ, Hapdey S, et al. Does chemotherapy influence the quantification of SUV when contrast-enhanced CT is used in PET/CT in lymphoma? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2007; 34:1943-1952

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Rodríguez-Vigil B, Gómez-León N, Pinilla I, et al. PET/CT in lymphoma: prospective study of enhanced full-dose PET/CT versus unenhanced low-dose PET/CT. J Nucl Med 2006; 47:1643-1648

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Even-Sapir E, Lievshitz G, Perry C, et al. Fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT patterns of extranodal involvement in patients with Non-Hodgkin lymphoma and Hodgkin’s disease. Radiol Clin North Am 2007; 45:697-709

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Bar-Shalom R. Normal and abnormal patterns of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT in lymphoma. Radiol Clin North Am 2007; 45:677-688

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Perry C, Herishanu Y, Metzer U, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of PET/CT in patients with extranodal marginal zone MALT lymphoma. Eur J Haematol 2007; 79:205-209

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Macapinlac HA. The utility of 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-D-glucose-positron emission tomography and combined positron emission tomography and computed tomography in lymphoma and melanoma. Mol Imaging Biol 2004; 6:200-207

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Tatsumi M, Cohade C, Nakamoto Y, Fishman EK, Wahl RL. Direct comparison of FDG PET and CT findings in patients with lymphoma: initial experience. Radiology 2005; 237:1038-1045

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Schaefer NG, Taverna 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; 244:257-262

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Rodriguez-Vigil B, Gomez-Leon N, Pinilla I, et al. Positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the management of Hodgkin’s disease and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol 2006; 35:151-163

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Strauss LG. Fluorine-18 deoxyglucose and false-positive results: a major problem in the diagnostics of oncological patients. Eur J Nucl Med 1996; 23:1409-1415

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Cook GJR, Fogelman I, Maisey MN. Normal physiological and benign pathological variants of 18-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography scanning: potential for error in interpretation. Semin Nucl Med 1996; 7:441-446

    Google Scholar 

  33. Hernandez-Maraver D, Hernandez-Navarro F, Gomez-Leon N, et al. Positron emission tomography/computed tomography: diagnostic accuracy in lymphoma. Br J Haematol 2006; 135:293-302

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. la Fougère C, Hundt W, Bröckel N, et al. Value of PET/CT versus PET and CT performed as separate investigations in patients with Hodgkin’s disease and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2006; 33:1417-1425

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Rhodes MM, Delbeke D, Whitlock JA, et al. Utility of FDG-PET/CT in follow-up of children treated for Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 2006; 28:300-306

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by grants from Scientific Research Expenses for Health and Welfare Programs and the Grant-in-Aid for Cancer Research from the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Yokohama City University Graduate School of Medicine, 3-9, Fukuura, Kanazawa-ku, Yokohama, Kanagawa, 236-0004, Japan

    Ukihide Tateishi & Tomio Inoue

  2. Division of Cancer Screening, Research Center for Cancer Prevention and Screening, National Cancer Center, Tokyo, Japan

    Takashi Terauchi

  3. Hematology and Stem Cell Transplantation Division, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan

    Kensei Tobinai

Authors
  1. Ukihide Tateishi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Takashi Terauchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tomio Inoue
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kensei Tobinai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ukihide Tateishi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tateishi, U., Terauchi, T., Inoue, T. et al. Nodal status of malignant lymphoma in pelvic and retroperitoneal lymphatic pathways: PET/CT. Abdom Imaging 35, 232–240 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-009-9516-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-009-9516-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation