Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Early interim 18F-FDG PET in Hodgkin’s lymphoma: evaluation on 304 patients

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

Abstract

Purpose

The use of early (interim) PET restaging during first-line therapy of Hodgkin’s lymphoma (HL) in clinical practice has considerably increased because of its ability to provide early recognition of treatment failure allowing patients to be transferred to more intensive treatment regimens.

Methods

Between June 1997 and June 2009, 304 patients with newly diagnosed HL (147 early stage and 157 advanced stage) were treated with the ABVD regimen at two Italian institutions. Patients underwent PET staging and restaging at baseline, after two cycles of therapy and at the end of the treatment.

Results

Of the 304 patients, 53 showed a positive interim PET scan and of these only 13 (24.5%) achieved continuous complete remission (CCR), whereas 251 patients showed a negative PET scan and of these 231 (92%) achieved CCR. Comparison between interim PET-positive and interim PET-negative patients indicated a significant association between PET findings and 9-year progression-free survival and 9-year overall survival, with a median follow-up of 31 months. Among the early-stage patients, 19 had a positive interim PET scan and only 4 (21%) achieved CCR; among the 128 patients with a negative interim PET scan, 122 (97.6%) achieved CCR. Among the advanced-stage patients, 34 showed a persistently positive PET scan with only 9 (26.4%) achieving CCR, whereas 123 showed a negative interim PET scan with 109 (88.6%) achieving CCR.

Conclusion

Our results demonstrate the role of an early PET scan as a significant step forward in the management of patients with early-stage or advanced-stage HL.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Terasawa T, Lau J, Bardet S, et al. Fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography for interim response assessment of advanced-stage Hodgkin’s lymphoma and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: a systematic review. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:1906–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Torizuka T, Nakamura F, Kanno T, et al. Early therapy monitoring with FDG-PET in aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004;31:22–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hutchings M, Loft A, Hansen M, et al. FDG-PET after two cycles of chemotherapy predicts treatment failure and progression-free survival in Hodgkin lymphoma. Blood. 2006;107:52–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Gallamini A, Rigacci L, Merli F, et al. The predictive value of positron emission tomography scanning performed after two courses of standard therapy on treatment outcome in advanced stage Hodgkin’s disease. Haematologica. 2006;91:475–81.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hutchings M, Mikhaeel NG, Fields PA, et al. Prognostic value of interim FDG-PET after two or three cycles of chemotherapy in Hodgkin lymphoma. Ann Oncol. 2005;16:1160–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Zinzani PL, Tani M, Fanti S, et al. Early positron emission tomography (PET) restaging: a predictive final response in Hodgkin’s disease patients. Ann Oncol. 2006;17:1296–300.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. 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;85:759–67.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Schot BW, Zijlstra JM, Sluiter WJ, et al. Early FDG-PET assessment in combination with clinical risk scores determines prognosis in recurring lymphoma. Blood. 2007;109:486–91.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Gallamini A, Hutchings M, Rigacci L, et al. Early interim 2-(18F)fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography is prognostically superior to international prognostic score in advanced-stage Hodgkin’s lymphoma: a report from a joint Italian-Danish study. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:3746–52.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Gobbi PG, Zinzani PL, Broglia C, et al. Comparison of prognostic models in patients with advanced Hodgkin disease: promising results from integration of the best three systems. Cancer. 2001;91:1467–78.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Hasenclever D, Diehl V. A prognostic score for advanced Hodgkin’s disease. International Prognostic Factors Project on Advanced Hodgkin’s Disease. N Engl J Med. 1998;339:1506–14.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Lister TA, Crowther D, Sutcliffe SB, et al. Report of a committee convened to discuss the evaluation and staging of patients with Hodgkin’s disease: Cotswolds meeting. J Clin Oncol. 1989;7:630–1636. Erratum in: J Clin Oncol. 1990;8:1602.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Gobbi PG, Broglia C, Di Giulio G, et al. The clinical value of tumor burden at diagnosis in Hodgkin lymphoma. Cancer. 2004;101:1824–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bartlett NL. The present: optimizing therapy – too much or too little? Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program. 2010;2010:108–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Dodd LE, Korn EL, Freidlin B, et al. Blinded independent central review of progression-free survival in phase III clinical trials: important design element or unnecessary expense? J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:3791–6. Erratum in: J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:2109-2110.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Carbone PP, Kaplan HS, Musshoff K, et al. Report of the committee on Hodgkin’s disease staging classification. Cancer Res. 1971;31:1860–1.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Cheson BD, Horning SJ, Coiffier B, et al. Report of an international workshop to standardize response criteria for non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas. NCI Sponsored International Working Group. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:1244–53. Erratum in: J Clin Oncol. 2000; 18:2351.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Cheson BD, Pfistner B, Juweid ME, et al. International Harmonization Project on Lymphoma. Revised response criteria for malignant lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:579–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kaplan ES, Meier P. Non-parametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc. 1958;58:457–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Spaepen K, Stroobants S, Dupont P, et al. ((18)F)FDG PET monitoring of tumour response to chemotherapy: does ((18)F)FDG uptake correlate with the viable tumour cell fraction? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003;30:682–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Barrington SF, Qian W, Somer EJ, et al. Concordance between four European centres of PET reporting criteria designed for use in multicentre trials in Hodgkin lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;37:1824–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Gallamini A, Hutchings M, Avigdor A, et al. Early interim PET scan in Hodgkin lymphoma: where do we stand? Leuk Lymphoma. 2008;49:659–62.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Barnes JA, LaCasce AS, Zukotynski K, et al. End-of-treatment but not interim PET scan predicts outcome in nonbulky limited-stage Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Ann Oncol. 2011;22:910–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Sher DJ, Mauch PM, Van Den Abbeele A, et al. Prognostic significance of mid- and post-ABVD PET imaging in Hodgkin’s lymphoma: the importance of involved-field radiotherapy. Ann Oncol. 2009;20(11):1848–53.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Straus DJ, Johnson JL, Lacasce S, et al. Doxorubicin, vinblastine, and gemcitabine (CALGB 50203) for stage I/II nonbulky Hodgkin lymphoma: pretreatment prognostic factors and interim PET. Blood. 2011;117(20):5314–20.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Strobel K, Schaefer NG, Renner C, et al. Cost-effectiveness therapy remission assessment in lymphoma patients using FDG-PET/CT: is an end of treatment exam necessary in all patients? Ann Oncol. 2007;18:658–64.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Fanti S, Castellucci P, Stefoni V, et al. Early relapse in a patient with Hodgkin’s disease and negative interim FDG-PET. Ann Nucl Med. 2008;22:429–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Radford JA, Barrington SF, O’Doherty MJ, et al. Interim results of a UK NCRI randomised trial comparing involved field radiotherapy with no further treatment after 3 cycles ABVD and a negative PET scan in clinical stages IA/IIA Hodgkin lymphoma. Haematologica. 2007;92 suppl 5:S32.

    Google Scholar 

  30. National Institutes of Health (2011) HD16 for early stage Hodgkin lymphoma. http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00736320. Accessed 23 Aug 2011

  31. National Institutes of Health (2011) Fludeoxyglucose F 18 PET scan-guided therapy or standard therapy in treating patients with previously untreated stage I or stage II Hodgkin’s lymphoma. http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00433433. Accessed 23 Aug 2011

  32. National Institutes of Health (2010) Positron emission tomography (PET)-adapted chemotherapy in advanced Hodgkin lymphoma (HL)(HD0607). http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00795613. Accessed 23 Aug 2011

  33. National Institutes of Health (2010) Fludeoxyglucose F 18-PET/CT imaging in assessing response to chemotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed stage II, stage III, or stage IV Hodgkin lymphoma. http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00678327. Accessed 23 Aug 2011

  34. National Institutes of Health (2011) High-dose chemotherapy and stem cell transplantation, in patients PET-2 positive, after 2 courses of ABVD and comparison of RT versus no RT in PET-2 negative patients (HD0801). http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00784537. Accessed 23 Aug 2011

  35. National Institutes of Health (2011) HD18 for advanced stages in Hodgkins lymphoma. http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00515554. Accessed 23 Aug 2011

  36. Sánchez-Aguilera A, Montalbán C, de la Cueva P, et al. Spanish Hodgkin Lymphoma Study Group. Tumor microenvironment and mitotic checkpoint are key factors in the outcome of classic Hodgkin lymphoma. Blood. 2006;108:662–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was partially supported by BolognAIL (Bologna, Italy). The authors would like to thank Claudio Agostinelli, Stefano Pileri (Institute of Hematology and Medical Oncology “L. e A. Seràgnoli”, Policlinico “Sant’Orsola-Malpighi”, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy), Gian Carlo Montini, Valentina Ambrosini (Department of Nuclear Medicine, Policlinico “Sant’Orsola-Malpighi”, Bologna, Italy), and Giulia Antognoli (Hematology Department, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria “Careggi”, Florence, Italy) for their collaboration in the collection of study material, data analysis and interpretation of the results.

Conflicts of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Hematology and Medical Oncology “L. e A. Seràgnoli”, Policlinico “Sant’Orsola-Malpighi”, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy

    Pier Luigi Zinzani, Vittorio Stefoni, Alessandro Broccoli, Lisa Argnani & Michele Baccarani

  2. Hematology Department, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria “Careggi”, Florence, Italy

    Luigi Rigacci & Benedetta Puccini

  3. Nuclear Medicine, Ospedale “Misericordia e Dolce”, Prato, Italy

    Antonio Castagnoli

  4. Nuclear Medicine, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria “Careggi”, Florence, Italy

    Luca Vaggelli

  5. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Policlinico “Sant’Orsola-Malpighi”, Via Massarenti, 9, 40138, Bologna, Italy

    Lucia Zanoni & Stefano Fanti

Authors
  1. Pier Luigi Zinzani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Luigi Rigacci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Vittorio Stefoni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alessandro Broccoli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Benedetta Puccini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Antonio Castagnoli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Luca Vaggelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Lucia Zanoni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Lisa Argnani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Michele Baccarani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Stefano Fanti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefano Fanti.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zinzani, P.L., Rigacci, L., Stefoni, V. et al. Early interim 18F-FDG PET in Hodgkin’s lymphoma: evaluation on 304 patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 39, 4–12 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-011-1916-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-011-1916-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation