Advertisement

Der Onkologe

, Volume 24, Issue 4, pp 287–294 | Cite as

Positronenemissionstomographie beim Hodgkin-Lymphom

  • Carsten Kobe
  • Christian Baues
  • Michael Fuchs
  • Alexander Drzezga
  • Peter Borchmann
  • Markus Dietlein
Leitthema

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund

Die FDG-PET (Fluordesoxyglucose-Positronenemissionstomographie) ist eine Standarduntersuchung in der Bestimmung des Stadiums und des Therapieansprechens des Hodgkin-Lymphoms geworden.

Ergebnisse

Im initialen Staging erlaubt die PET eine sichere Stadienzuordnung und bei unauffälligem osteomedullärem Befund den Verzicht auf die Knochenmarkbiopsie. Der prädiktive Wert der FDG-PET während und nach der Chemotherapie bietet weiteren, deutlichen Zugewinn an Information. PET-gesteuerte Therapieregime wurden eingeführt, die die PET schon nach 2 Zyklen Chemotherapie zur weiteren Therapiestratifizierung einsetzen. Sowohl Protokolle, die eine Intensivierung der Therapie aufgrund einer positiven PET nutzen, als auch die Deeskalation der Therapie wegen einer unauffälligen, negativen PET haben Erfolge gezeigt. So kann z. B. bei negativer FDG-PET nach 2 Zyklen effektiver Chemotherapie für fortgeschrittene Stadien die Therapie von üblicherweise 6 auf insgesamt nur 4 Zyklen verkürzt werden. Nach Chemotherapie kann in fortgeschrittenen Stadien bei negativer FDG-PET außerdem ohne Verlust an Therapiesicherheit auf eine ergänzende Bestrahlung verzichtet werden.

Ausblick

Für frühe und mittlere Stadien ist die Möglichkeit des Verzichts auf die Bestrahlung noch nicht gezeigt, jedoch werden belastbare Daten erwartet. Robuste und reproduzierbare Beurteilungskriterien für die PET sind heute Standard bei der Interpretation der Untersuchung, sowohl in wissenschaftlichen Studien als auch in der täglichen klinischen Routine. Die sog. 5‑Punkte-Deauville-Skala ist derzeitiger Standard zur visuellen Analyse. Die Konsequenzen aus der jeweiligen Zuordnung berücksichtigen dabei sowohl die vorangegangene als auch die folgende Behandlung.

Schlüsselwörter

FDG-PET 5-Punkte-Deauville-Skala Strahlentherapie Staging Therapieansprechen 

Positron emission tomography in Hodgkin’s lymphoma

Abstract

Background

The FDG-PET method is a standard procedure in staging and response assessment of Hodgkin’s lymphoma patients.

Results

An accurate staging allows the bone marrow biopsy to be omitted if PET is negative concerning bone marrow involvement. An FDG-PET after induction therapy provides additional relevant prognostic information. The FDG-PET adapted therapy regimens have been introduced making use of the high predictive value of FDG PET early in the treatment course, e. g. after two cycles of chemotherapy. Success rates of treatment could be improved for both intensification and de-escalation of treatment on the basis of PET performed after two cycles of chemotherapy. In the case of a negative PET after two cycles of effective chemotherapy for advanced stages, chemotherapy can be restricted to a total of 4 cycles instead of 6 cycles. Furthermore, radiotherapy in advanced stages can be safely omitted in PET negative patients after effective chemotherapy.

Perspective

The reliability of end of treatment PET as a basis for omitting radiotherapy in early and intermediate stages of Hodgkin’s lymphoma is probably given, but remains to be documented. Robust and reproducible interpretation criteria are being used both in ongoing clinical trials and in the daily routine. The recommended five-point Deauville scale has become the standard in assessment of the response to PET treatment, with the caveat that the consequences of a PET scan may be influenced by previous and subsequent treatment.

Keywords

FDG-PET Five-point Deauville scale Radiotherapy Staging Treatment response 

Notes

Einhaltung ethischer Richtlinien

Interessenkonflikt

C. Kobe, C. Baues, M. Fuchs, A. Drzezga, P. Borchmann und M. Dietlein geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine von den Autoren durchgeführten Studien an Menschen oder Tieren.

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Andre MPE, Girinsky T, Federico M et al (2017) Early positron emission tomography response-adapted treatment in stage I and II Hodgkin lymphoma: Final results of the randomized EORTC/LYSA/FIL H10 Trial. J Clin Oncol 35:1786–1794CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barrington SF, Kluge R (2017) FDG PET for therapy monitoring in Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphomas. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 44:97–110CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barrington SF, Mikhaeel NG, Kostakoglu L et al (2014) Role of imaging in the staging and response assessment of lymphoma: consensus of the international conference on malignant lymphomas imaging working group. J Clin Oncol 32:3048–3058CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    van den Belt T, Burggraaff C, Hoekstra O (2017) Effect of reconstruction settings and therapy on 18F-FDG PET/CT blood pool and liver SUV in patients with diffuse large B‑cell lymphoma. J Nucl Med 58:608 (Abstract)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boellaard R, Delgado-Bolton R, Oyen WJ et al (2015) FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 42:328–354CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Borchmann P, Goergen H, Kobe C et al (2017) Treatment reduction in patients with advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma and negative interim PET: final results of the international, randomized phase 3 trial HD18 by the German Hodgkin study group. Haematologica 102:24–25 (Abstract)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    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
  8. 8.
    Diehl V, Franklin J, Pfreundschuh M et al (2003) Standard and increased-dose BEACOPP chemotherapy compared with COPP-ABVD for advanced Hodgkin’s disease. N Engl J Med 348:2386–2395CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eich HT, Staar S, Gossmann A et al (2004) Centralized radiation oncologic review of cross-sectional imaging of Hodgkin’s disease leads to significant changes in required involved field-results of a quality assurance program of the German Hodgkin study group. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 58:1121–1127CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    El-Galaly TC, d’Amore F, Mylam KJ et al (2012) Routine bone marrow biopsy has little or no therapeutic consequence for positron emission tomography/computed tomography-staged treatment-naive patients with Hodgkin lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 30:4508–4514CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Engert A, Haverkamp H, Kobe C et al (2012) Reduced-intensity chemotherapy and PET-guided radiotherapy in patients with advanced stage Hodgkin’s lymphoma (HD15 trial): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 non-inferiority trial. Lancet 379:1791–1799CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Furth C, Steffen IG, Amthauer H et al (2009) Early and late therapy response assessment with [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in pediatric Hodgkin’s lymphoma: analysis of a prospective multicenter trial. J Clin Oncol 27:4385–4391CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Girinsky T, van der Maazen R, Specht L et al (2006) Involved-node radiotherapy (INRT) in patients with early Hodgkin lymphoma: concepts and guidelines. Radiother Oncol 79:270–277CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hofheinz F, Apostolova I, Oehme L et al (2017) Test-retest variability of lesion SUV and lesion SUR in 18F-FDG PET: an analysis of data from two prospective multicenter trials. J Nucl Med.  https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.117.190736 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Itti E, Lin C, Dupuis J et al (2009) 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 50:527–533CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kobe C, Dietlein M, Franklin J et al (2008) Positron emission tomography has a high negative predictive value for progression or early relapse for patients with residual disease after first-line chemotherapy in advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma. Blood 112:3989–3994CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kobe C, Dietlein M, Mauz-Korholz C et al (2008) FDG-PET in Hodgkin lymphoma. Nuklearmedizin 47:235–238PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kobe C, Kuhnert G, Kahraman D et al (2014) Assessment of tumor size reduction improves outcome prediction of positron emission tomography/computed tomography after chemotherapy in advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 32:1776–1781CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kobe C, Kuhnert G, Haverkamp H et al (2015) Concordance in the interpretation of PET after chemotherapy in advanced stage Hodgkin lymphoma. Nuklearmedizin 54:241–246CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kuhnert G, Boellaard R, Sterzer S et al (2016) Impact of PET/CT image reconstruction methods and liver uptake normalization strategies on quantitative image analysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 43:249–258CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lodge MA (2017) Repeatability of SUV in oncologic 18F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med 58:523–532CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Meignan M, Gallamini A, Haioun C (2009) Report on the First International Workshop on interim-PET scan in lymphoma. Leuk Lymphoma 50:1257–1260CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mesguich C, Cazeau AL, Bouabdallah K et al (2016) Hodgkin lymphoma: a negative interim-PET cannot circumvent the need for end-of-treatment-PET evaluation. Br J Haematol 175:652–660CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Müller RP, Eich HT (2005) The development of quality assurance programs for radiotherapy within the German Hodgkin Study Group (GHSG). Introduction, continuing work, and results of the radiotherapy reference panel. Strahlenther Onkol 181:557–566CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Purz S, Mauz-Korholz C, Korholz D et al (2011) [18F]Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography for detection of bone marrow involvement in children and adolescents with Hodgkin’s lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 29:3523–3528CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Raemaekers JM, Andre MP, Federico M et al (2014) Omitting radiotherapy in early positron emission tomography-negative stage I/II Hodgkin lymphoma is associated with an increased risk of early relapse: clinical results of the preplanned interim analysis of the randomized EORTC/LYSA/FIL H10 trial. J Clin Oncol 32:1188–1194CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sickinger MT, von Tresckow B, Kobe C et al (2016) PET-adapted omission of radiotherapy in early stage Hodgkin lymphoma—a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 101:86–92CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Spaepen K, Stroobants S, Dupont P et al (2001) Can positron emission tomography with [(18)F]-fluorodeoxyglucose after first-line treatment distinguish Hodgkin’s disease patients who need additional therapy from others in whom additional therapy would mean avoidable toxicity? Br J Haematol 115:272–278CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Weihrauch MR, Re D, Scheidhauer K et al (2001) Thoracic positron emission tomography using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose for the evaluation of residual mediastinal Hodgkin disease. Blood 98:2930–2934CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    de Wit M, Bohuslavizki KH, Buchert R et al (2001) 18FDG-PET following treatment as valid predictor for disease-free survival in Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Ann Oncol 12:29–37CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carsten Kobe
    • 1
  • Christian Baues
    • 2
  • Michael Fuchs
    • 3
  • Alexander Drzezga
    • 1
  • Peter Borchmann
    • 3
    • 4
  • Markus Dietlein
    • 1
  1. 1.Klinik und Poliklinik für NuklearmedizinUniversitätsklinikum KölnKölnDeutschland
  2. 2.Klinik für StrahlentherapieUniversitätsklinikum KölnKölnDeutschland
  3. 3.German Hodgkin Study GroupUniversitätsklinikum KölnKölnDeutschland
  4. 4.Klinik I für Innere MedizinUniversitätsklinikum KölnKölnDeutschland

Personalised recommendations