Advertisement

Lymphoma

  • E. Edmund Kim
  • Franklin C. L. Wong
Chapter

Abstract

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).

Keywords

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.

References

  1. 1.
    Sandlund JT, Downing JR, Crist WM. Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in childhood. N Engl J Med. 1996;334:1238–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jemal A, Thomas A, Murray T, et al. Cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2002;52:23–47.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Newton R, Ferlay J, Beral V, et al. The epidemiology of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: comparison of nodal and extranodal sites. Int J Cancer. 1997;72:923–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Glass AG, Karnell LH, Menck HR. The national cancer data base report on non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Cancer. 1997;80:2311–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Weisenburger D. The International Lymphoma Study Group classification of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: pathology findings from a large multicenter study. Mod Pathol. 1997;10:136A.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Larcos G, Farlow DC, Antico VF, et al. The role of high dose Ga-67 scintigraphy in staging untreated patients with lymphoma. Austr N Z J Med. 1994;24:5–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tatsumi M, Kitayama H, Sugahara H, et al. Whole-body hybrid PET with F-18 FDG in the staging of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. J Nucl Med. 2001;42:601–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Carr R, Barrington S, Madam B, et al. Detection of lymphoma in bone marrow by whole-body positron emission tomography. Blood. 1998;91:3340–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Finkelstein JD, Martin JJ. Methionine metabolism in mammals. J Biol Chem. 1986;26:1582–7.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Leskinen-Kallio S, Ruotsalainem U, Nägren K, et al. Uptake of C-11 methionine and fluorodeoxyglucose in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: a PET study. J Nucl Med. 1991;32:1211–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rodriguez M, Rehn S, Ahlstrom H, et al. Predicting malignancy grade with PET in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. J Nucl Med. 1995;36:1790–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sutinen E, Jyrkio S, Varpula M, et al. Nodal staging of lymphoma with whole-body PET: comparison of C-11 methionine and FDG. J Nucl Med. 2000;41:1980–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kubota R, Kubota K, Yamada S, et al. Methionine uptake by tumor tissue: a microautoradiographic comparison with FDG. J Nucl Med. 1995;36:484–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Charion M, Beyer T, Kinahan PE, et al. Whole-body FDG PET and CT imaging of malignancies using a combined PET/CT scanner. J Nucl Med. 1999;40:256.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Moog F, Kotzerke J, Reske SN. FDG-PET can replace bone scintigraphy in primary staging of malignant lymphoma. J Nucl Med. 1999;40:1407–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lapela M, Leskinen-Kallio S, Minn H, et al. Increased glucose metabolism in untreated non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: a study with PET and F-18 FDG. Blood. 1995;9:3522–7.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hoffman JM, Waskin HA, Schifter T, et al. FDG-PET in differentiating lymphoma from nonmalignant central nervous system lesions in patients with AIDS. J Nucl Med. 1993;34:567–75.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    DeVita VT, Cannelos GP. The lymphomas. Semin Hematol. 1999;36:84–94.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    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
  20. 20.
    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
  21. 21.
    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
  22. 22.
    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
  23. 23.
    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
  24. 24.
    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
  25. 25.
    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
  26. 26.
    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
  27. 27.
    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
  28. 28.
    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
  29. 29.
    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
  30. 30.
    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
  31. 31.
    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
  32. 32.
    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
  33. 33.
    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
  34. 34.
    Hoskin PJ. FDG PET in the management of ­lymphoma: a clinical perspective. Eur J Nucl Med. 2002;29:449–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departments of Nuclear Medicine and Diagnostic RadiologyThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and Medical SchoolHoustonUSA
  2. 2.Graduate School of Convergence Science and TechnologySeoul National UniversitySeoulSouth Korea
  3. 3.Departments of Nuclear Medicine and NeurooncologyThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations