Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Positron emission tomography with [18F]FDG for therapy response monitoring in lymphoma patients

  • Published:
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Lymphomas are a heterogeneous group of diseases with differing histopathology, clinical behaviour, response to therapy and outcome. Lymphomas are highly sensitive to chemotherapy and radiotherapy, and the recent developments in treatment have considerably improved clinical outcome. However, there is increasing recognition that this has been at the cost of long-term treatment-related effects in a relatively young patient population. Thus, one of the most challenging aspects in the imaging of lymphoma patients is tailoring the intensity of the treatment to the individual patient. This paper reviews recently published data concerning the use of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography ([18F]FDG-PET) for therapy monitoring in lymphoma patients and highlights the shortcomings and future directions. A temporary strategy for the implementation of [18F]FDG-PET in the management of lymphoma patients is proposed.

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Paul R. Comparison of fluorine-18-2-fluorodeoxyglucose and gallium-67 citrate imaging for the detection of lymphoma. J Nucl Med 1987; 28:288–292.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Kostakoglu L, Goldsmith SJ. Fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the staging and follow-up of lymphoma: is it time to shift gears? Eur J Nucl Med 2000; 27:1564–1578.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Coiffier B. How to interpret the radiological abnormalities that persist after treatment in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma patients [editorial]? Ann Oncol 1999; 10:1141.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Russel KJ, Hope RT. Response of mediastinal Hodgkin's disease to radiotherapy: rate of tumor regression not predictive of outcome. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1989; 16:201–204.

    Google Scholar 

  5. 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; 11:2273–2278.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Kaplan W, Jochelson MS, Herman TS, et al. Gallium-67 imaging: a predictor of residual tumor viability and clinical outcome in patients with diffuse large-cell lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 1990; 8:1966–1970.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Janicek M, Kaplan W, Neuberg D, Canellos GP, Shulman LN, Shipp MA. 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; 15:1631–1637.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Front D, Bar-Shalom R, Mor M, et al. Aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: early prediction of outcome with67Ga scintigraphy. Radiology 2000; 214:253–257.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Zinzani PL, Magagnoli M, Chierichetti F, et al. The role of positron emission tomography (PET) in the management of lymphoma patients. Ann Oncol 1999; 10:1181–1184.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Jerusalem G, Beguin Y, Fassotte MF, et al. Whole-body positron emission tomography using F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose for post-treatment evaluation in Hodgkin's disease and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma has a higher diagnostic and prognostic value than classical computed tomography scan imaging. Blood 1999; 94:429–433.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Maisey NR, Hill ME, Webb A, et al. Are18fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and magnetic resonance imaging useful in the prediction of relapse in lymphoma residual masses? Eur J Cancer 2000; 36:200–206.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Gordon L, Harrington D, Anderson J, et al. Comparison of a second-generation combination chemotherapy regimen (m-BACOP) with a standard regimen (CHOP for advanced diffuse non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. N Engl J Med 1992; 327:1342–1349.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Mikhaeel NG, Timothy AR, Odoherty MJ, Hain S, Maisey MN. 18-FDG-PET as a prognostic indicator in the treatment of aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, comparison with CT. Leuk Lymphoma 2000; 39:543–553.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Spaepen K, Stroobants S, Dupont P, et al. The prognostic value of positron emission tomography (PET) with18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18FDG) after first-line chemotherapy in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: 18FDG-PET, a valid alternative to conventional diagnostic methods. J Clin Oncol 2000; 19:414–419.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Juweid ME, Wiseman GA, Menda Y, Vose J, Links B, Graham MM. FDG-PET in the prediction of progression free survival at 1-year of patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma following antracycline based first line chemotherapy [abstract]. Eur J Nucl Med 2002; 29 (Suppl 1):S264.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Aisenberg AC. Problems in Hodgkin's disease management. Blood 1999; 93:761–779.

    Google Scholar 

  17. de Wit M, Bohuslavizki KH, Buchert R, Bumann D, Clausen M, Hossfeld DK.18FDG-PET following treatment as valid predictor for disease-free survival in Hodgkin's disease. Ann Oncol 2001; 12:29–37.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Weihrauch MR, Re D, Scheidhauer K et al. Thoracic positron emission tomography using18F-fluorodeoxyglucose for the evaluation of residual mediastinal Hodgkin disease. Blood 2001; 98:2930–2943.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Spaepen K, Stroobants S, Dupont P et al. Can positron emission tomography with18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG-PET) after first line treatment distinguish Hodgkin's disease patients who need additional therapy from others where additional therapy would mean avoidable toxicity? Br J Haematol 2001; 115:272–278.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Mikhaeel NG, Mainwaring P, Nunan T, Timothy AR. Prognostic value of interim and post treatment FDG-PET scanning in Hodgkin lymphoma [abstract]. Ann Oncol 2002; 13 (Suppl 2):21.

    Google Scholar 

  21. The International Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma Prognostic Factors Project. A predictive model for aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. N Engl J Med 1993; 329:987–994.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Armitage J, Weisenburger D, Hutchins M, et al. Chemotherapy for diffuse large-cell lymphoma—rapidly responding patients have more durable remissions. J Clin Oncol 1986; 4:160–164.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Thomas F, Cosset J-M, Cherel P, et al. Thoracic CT-scanning follow-up of residual mediastinal masses after treatment of Hodgkin's disease. Radiother Oncol 1988; 11:119–122.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Hoekstra OS, van lingen A, Ossenkoppele GJ, et al. Early response monitoring in malignant lymphoma using fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose single-photon emission tomography. Eur J Nucl Med 1993; 20:1214–1220.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss A, Strauss LG, Goldschmidt H, et al. Evaluation of tumor metabolism and multidrug resistance in patients with treated malignant lymphomas. Eur J Nucl Med 1995; 22:434–442.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Römer W, Hanauske AR, Ziegler S, et al. Positron emission tomography in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: assessment of chemotherapy with fluorodeoxyglucose. Blood 1998; 91:4464–4471.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Jerusalem G, Beguin Y, Fassotte M-F, et al. Persistent tumor18F-FDG uptake after a few cycles of polychemotherapy is predictive of treatment failure in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Haematologica 2000; 85:613–618.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Spaepen K, Stroobants S, Dupont P, et al. Early restaging positron emission tomography with18F-fluorodeoxyglucose predicts outcome in patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Ann Oncol 2002; 13:1356–1363.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Kostakoglu L, Coleman M, Leonard JP, Kuji I, Zoe H, Goldsmith SJ. PET predicts prognosis after 1 cycle of chemotherapy in aggressive lymphoma ad Hodgkin's disease. J Nucl Med 2002; 43:1018–1027.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Lowe VJ, Wiseman GA. Assessment of lymphoma therapy using18F-FDG-PET. J Nucl Med 2002; 43:1028–1030.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Philip T, Guglielmi C, Hagenbeek A, et al. Autologous bone marrow transplantation as compared with salvage chemotherapy in relapses of chemosensitive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. N Engl J Med 1995; 333:1540–1545.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Stiff PJ, Dahlberg S, Forman SJ, et al. Autologous bone marrow transplantation for patients with relapses or refractory diffuse aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: value of augmented preparative regimes. J Clin Oncol 1998; 16:48–55.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Becherer A, Mitterbauer M, Jaeger U, et al. Positron emission tomography with FDG-PET predicts relapse of malignant lymphoma after high-dose therapy with stem cell transplantation. Leukemia 2002; 16:260–267.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Filmont JE, Yap C, Emmanouilides C, et al. Prognostic value18F-FDG-PET after high-dose chemotherapy and prior to autologous stem cell transplantation in lymphoma [abstract]. J Nucl Med 2002; 43 (Suppl): 78P.

  35. Cremerius U, Fabry U, Wildberger JE, et al. Pre-transplant positron emission tomography using fluorine-18-fluoro-deoxyglucose predicts outcome in patients treated with high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Bone Marrow Transplant 2002; 30:103–111.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Schot BW, Pruim J, van Imhoff GW, Sluiter W, Vellenga E, Vaalburg W. Early FDG-PET for the prediction of long-term outcome in chemo-sensitive relapsed lymphoma [abstract]. Eur J Nucl Med 2002; 29 (Suppl 1):S113.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Torizuka T, Zasadny KR, Kison PV, Rommelfanger SG, Kaminski MS, Wahl RL. Metobolic response on non-Hodgkin's lymphoma to131I-anti-B1 radioimmunotherapy: evaluation with FDG-PET. J Nucl Med 2000; 41:999–1005.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Scheidhauer K, Wolf I, von Schilling C, et al. Outcome prediction of radioimmunotherapy of NHL by FDG-PET [abstract]. Eur J Nucl Med 2002; 29 (Suppl 1):S113.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Hofmann M, Hertenstein B, Boerner AR, et al. 18-F-FDG PET in monitoring therapy response to RIT by 131-I rituximab antibody [abstract]. Ann Oncol 2002; 13 (Suppl 2):96.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, UZ Gasthuisberg, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium

    Karoline Spaepen, Sigrid Stroobants & Luc Mortelmans

  2. Department of Hematology, UZ Gasthuisberg, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium

    Gregor Verhoef

Authors
  1. Karoline Spaepen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sigrid Stroobants
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gregor Verhoef
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Luc Mortelmans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luc Mortelmans.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Spaepen, K., Stroobants, S., Verhoef, G. et al. Positron emission tomography with [18F]FDG for therapy response monitoring in lymphoma patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 30 (Suppl 1), S97–S105 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-003-1166-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-003-1166-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation