The term lymphoma identifies two distinct groups of tumors: Hodgkin’s disease (HD) and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL). Since the late 1970s, significant progress has been made in the elucidation of the pathogenesis of NHL as a clonal malignant expansion of B or T cells. B lymphocytes are generated in the bone marrow as a result of a multistep differentiation process. On entering the germinal center (GC), B cells activate into centroblasts, proliferate, and mature into centrocytes. Cells that have exited the GC have two fates: differentiation into either plasma cells or into memory B cells. Based on the absence or presence of somatic immunoglobulin (Ig) hypermutation, B-cell NHL can be grouped into two broad histogenetic categories: One derived from pre-GC B cells and devoid of Ig mutations (mantle cell lymphoma, chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma), and the other derived from B cells that have transited through the GC and harbor Ig mutations (follicular lymphoma, lymphoplasmacytoid lymphoma, mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue lymphoma, diffuse large cell lymphoma, Burkitt’s lymphoma). The pathogenesis of lymphoma represents a multistep process involving the progressive and clonal accumulation of multiple genetic lesions affecting protooncogenes and tumor suppressor genes. The genome of lymphoma cells is relatively stable and is characterized by few nonrandom chromosomal abnormalities, commonly represented by chromosomal translocations. A new classification, called the Revised European-American Lymphoma, was created in the early 1990s to establish definitions for distinct lymphomatous diseases based on morphologic, clinical, immunophenotypic, and molecular genetic features (Table 28.1).
Positron Emission Tomography Standard Uptake Value Follicular Lymphoma Mantle Cell Lymphoma Acquire Immune Deficiency Syndrome
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Surbone A, Longo DL, DeVita VL, et al. Residual abdominal masses in aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after combination chemotherapy; significance and management. J Clin Oncol. 1988;6:1832–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Janicek M, Kaplan W, Neuberg D, et al. Early restaging gallium scans predict outcome in poor prognosis patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma treated with high-dose CHOP chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 1997;15:1631–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Front D, Bar-Shalom R, Mor M, et al. Aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: early prediction of outcome with Ga-67 scintigraphy. Radiology. 2000;214:253–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Hill M, Cunningham D, MacVicar D, et al. Role of magnetic resonance imaging in predicting relapse in residual masses after treatment of lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 1993;11:2273–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Kostakoglu L, Leonard JP, Coleman M, et al. Comparison of F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose PET and Ga-67 scintigraphy in evaluation of lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2000;19:10a.Google Scholar
Mikhaeel NG, Timothy AR, Hain SF, O’Doherty MJ. F-18 FDG PET for the assessment of residual masses on CT following treatment of lymphomas. Ann Oncol. 2000;11:147–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romer W, Hanauske A, Ziegler S, et al. Positron emission tomography in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: assessment of chemotherapy with fluorodeoxyglucose. Blood. 1998;91:4464–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Kostakoglu L, Coleman M, Leonard JP, et al. PET predicts prognosis after 1 cycle of chemotherapy in aggressive lymphoma and Hodgkin’s disease. J Nucl Med. 2002;43:1018–27.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Jerusalem G, Beguin Y, Fassotte MF, et al. Whole-body PET using F-18 FDG for post-treatment evaluation in Hodgkin’s disease and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma has higher diagnostic and prognostic value than classical CT scan imaging. Blood. 1999;94:429–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Torizuka T, Zasadny KR, Kison PV, et al. Metabolic response of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma to I-131 anti-B1 radioimmunotherapy: evaluation with FDG PET. J Nucl Med. 2000;41:999–1005.PubMedGoogle Scholar
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(3):293–302.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaefer NG, Strobel K, Taverna C, Hany TF. Bone involvement in patient with lymphoma: the role of FDG-PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imag. 2007;34(1):60–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Querellou S, Valette F, Bodet-Milin C, et al. FDG-PET/CT predicts outcome in patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and Hodgkin’s disease. Ann Hematol. 2006;85(11):759–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strobel K, Schaefer NG, Renner C, et al. Cost-effectiveness therapy remission assessment in lymphoma patients using 2-F-18 fluor-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography: is an end of treatment exam necessary in all patients? Ann Oncol. 2007;18(4):658–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaefer NG, Hany TF, Taverna C, et al. Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and Hodgkin’s disease: coregistered FDG PET and CT at staging and restaging- do we need contrast-enhanced CT? Radiology. 2004;232(2):823–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoskin PJ. FDG PET in the management of lymphoma: a clinical perspective. Eur J Nucl Med. 2002;29:449–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar