Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Pediatric lymphoma: metabolic tumor burden as a quantitative index for treatment response evaluation

  • Original article
  • Published:
Annals of Nuclear Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

Metabolic tumor burden (MTB) incorporates the advantages of the existing indices: the metabolic volume of the lesion calculated by size-dependent thresholding on positron emission tomography–computed tomography (PET–CT) along with its aggressiveness as determined by standardized uptake value (SUV). This study was conducted to investigate whether MTB can be used as an objective index for monitoring therapy response in pediatric lymphoma.

Methods

Forty-two pediatric patients (35 male and 7 female) with histologically proven lymphomas (26 Hodgkin’s and 16 non-Hodgkin’s) were evaluated. MTB was assessed in baseline, early interim (after 2 cycles) and post-therapy PET–CT studies using RT_Image software. Size-dependent thresholding based on a phantom study conducted at our institute was used for the calculation of metabolic tumor volume (MTV). MTB was given as the product of MTV and the SUVmean. Summation of MTB from all lesions gave the whole body MTB. Baseline, early interim and post-therapy SUVmax and whole body MTB of the partial and complete response group were compared.

Results

Of 42 patients, 37 had complete response and 5 had partial response at the end of therapy based on clinical, CECT and bone marrow biopsy findings. SUVmax showed an overall reduction of 87.4% while MTB showed a reduction of 96.4% between baseline and early interim PET–CT scan. Similarly, SUVmax showed an overall reduction of 95.2% while MTB showed a reduction of 99.6% between baseline and post-therapy scan. There was significant difference between MTB of partial response and complete response group at baseline and early interim PET–CT (p 0.031 and 0.012, respectively). No such significant difference was found for SUVmax.

Conclusion

Whole body MTB appears to be useful quantitative parameter for the assessment of treatment response using PET–CT in pediatric lymphoma patients.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sandland JT, Downing JR, Crist WM. Non Hodgkin’s lymphoma in childhood. N Eng J Med. 1996;334:1238–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Kumar R, Maillard I, Schuster SJ, Alavi A. The utility of FDG-PET imaging in management of patients with Hodgkin’s and Non Hodgkin’s lymphomas. Radiol Clin North Am. 2004;42:1083–100.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Murphy SB, Fairclough DL, Hutchinson RE, Berard CW. Non Hodgkin’s lymphomas of childhood: an analysis of histology, staging and response to treatment of 338 cases at a single institution. J Clin Oncol. 1989;7:186–93.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Mauch PM, Weinstein H, Botnick L, Belli J, Cassady JR. An evaluation of long term survival and treatment complications in children with Hodgkin’s disease. Cancer. 1988;51:925–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Schwartz CL. The management of Hodgkin’s disease in the young child. Curr Opin Pediatr. 2003;15:1–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, Wanders J, Kaplan RS, Rubinstein L, et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92:205–16.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Geus-Oei LF, van der Heijden HFM, Visser EP, Hermsen R, van Hoorn BA, Timmer-Bonte JN, et al. Chemotherapy response evaluation with 18F-FDG PET in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:1592–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. de Wit M, Bumann D, Beyer W, Herbst K, Clausen M, Hossfeld DK. Whole body positron emission tomography for diagnosis of residual mass in patients with lymphoma. Ann Oncol. 1997;8:57–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kumar R. Assessment of therapy response in malignant tumors with 18F-FLT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007;34:1334–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ciernik IF, Dizendorf E, Baumert BG. Radiation treatment planning with an integrated positron emission and computer tomography (PET–CT): a feasibility study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003;57:853–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Amthauer H, Furth C, Denecke T, Hundsdoerfer P, Voelker T, Seeger K, et al. FDG-PET in 10 children with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: initial experience in staging and follow up. Klin Padiatr. 2005;217:327–33.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Riad R, Omar W, Kotb M, Hafez M, Sidhom I, Zamzam M, et al. Role of PET–CT in malignant pediatric lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:319–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Miller E, Metser U, Avrahami G, Dvir R, Valdman D, Sira LB, et al. Role of 18F-FDG PET–CT in staging and follow-up of lymphoma in pediatric and young adult patients. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2006;30:689–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Benz MR, Evilevitch V, Allen-Auerbach MS, Eilber FC, Phelps ME, Czernin J, et al. Treatment monitoring by 18F-FDG PET–CT in patients with sarcomas: interobserver variability of quantitative parameters in treatment-induced changes in histopathologically responding and nonresponding tumors. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:1038–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Graves EE, Quon A, Loo BW. RT_Image: an open-source tool for investigating PET in radiation oncology. Technol cancer Res Treat. 2007;6:111–21.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Surbone A, Longo DL, DeVita VT Jr, Ihde DC, Duffey PL, Jaffe ES, et al. Residual abdominal masses in aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after combination chemotherapy: significance and management. J Clin Oncol. 1988;6:1832–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Radford JA, Cowan RA, Flanagan M, Dunn G, Crowther D, Johnson RJ, et al. The significance of residual mediastinal abnormality on the chest radiograph following treatment for Hodgkin’s disease. J Clin Oncol. 1988;6:940–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Jochelson M, Mauch P, Balikian J, Rosenthal D, Canellos G, et al. The significance of the residual mediastinal mass in treated Hodgkin’s disease. J Clin Oncol. 1985;3:637–40.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Stewart FM, Williamson BR, Innes DJ, Hess CE. Residual tumor masses following treatment for advanced histiocytic lymphoma. Diagnostic and therapeutic implications. Cancer. 1985;55:620–3.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Hermann S, Wormann D, Pixberg M, Hunold A, Heindel W, Jürgens H, et al. Staging in childhood lymphoma: difference between FDG PET and CT. Nuklearmedizin. 2005;44:1–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Jerusalem G, Beguin Y, Fassotte MF, Najjar F, Paulus P, Rigo P, et al. Persistent tumor 18F-FDG uptake after a few cycles of polychemotherapy is predictive of treatment failure in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Haematologica. 2000;85:613–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Jerusalem G, Hustinx R, Beguin Y, Fillet G. Evaluation of therapy for lymphoma. Semin Nucl Med. 2005;35:186–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 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;42:1083–100.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Berkowitz A, Basu S, Srinivas S, Sankaran S, Schuster S, Alavi A. Determination of whole-body metabolic burden as a quantitative measure of disease activity in lymphoma: a novel approach with fluorodeoxyglucose-PET. Nucl Med Commun. 2008;29:521–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Lin C, Itti E, Haioun C, Petegnief Y, Luciani A, Dupuis J, et al. Early 18-F-FDG PET for prediction of prognosis in patients with patients with diffuse large cell lymphoma: SUV based assessment versus visual analysis. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:1626–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Alavi A, Newberg AB, Souder E, Berlin JA. Quantitative analysis of PET and MRI data in normal aging and Alzheimer’s disease: atrophy weighted total brain metabolism and absolute whole brain metabolism as reliable discriminators. J Nucl Med. 1993;34:1681–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Bural GG, Torigian DA, Chamroonrat W, Alkhawaldeh K, Houseni M, El-Haddad G, et al. Quantitative assessment of the atherosclerotic burden of the aorta by combined FDG-PET and CT image analysis: a new concept. Nucl Med Biol. 2006;33:1037–43.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Larson SM, Erdi Y, Akhurst T, Mazumdar M, Macapinlac HA, Finn RD, et al. Tumor treatment response based on visual and quantitative changes in global tumor glycolysis using PET-FDG imaging. The visual response score and the change in total lesion glycolysis. Clin Positron Imaging. 1999;2:159–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Lee P, Weerasuriya DK, Lavori PW, Quon A, Hara W, Maxim PG, et al. Metabolic tumor burden predicts for disease progression and death in lung cancer. Int J Radiation Oncology Biol Phys. 2007;2:328–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. La TH, Filion EJ, Turnbull BB, Chu JN, Lee P, Nguyen K, et al. Metabolic tumor volume predicts for recurrence and death in head and neck cancer. Int J Radiation Oncology Biol Phys. 2009;5:1335–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, E-81, Ansari Nagar (East), AIIMS Campus, New Delhi, 110029, India

    Punit Sharma, Arun Gupta, Chetan Patel, Arun Malhotra & Rakesh Kumar

  2. Department of Medical Oncology, Institute Rotary Cancer Hospital, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India

    Sameer Bakhshi

Authors
  1. Punit Sharma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Arun Gupta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chetan Patel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sameer Bakhshi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Arun Malhotra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Rakesh Kumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rakesh Kumar.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sharma, P., Gupta, A., Patel, C. et al. Pediatric lymphoma: metabolic tumor burden as a quantitative index for treatment response evaluation. Ann Nucl Med 26, 58–66 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-011-0539-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-011-0539-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation