PURPOSE: To correlate [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography ([(18)F]FDG-PET) status after chemotherapy, but before radiation, with outcome in patients treated with the Stanford V regimen. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed retrospectively 81 patients with Hodgkin's disease who had serial [(18)F]FDG-PET scans performed at baseline and again at the completion of Stanford V chemotherapy, before planned radiotherapy. Patients with favorable stage I/II (nonbulky mediastinal disease) and those with bulky mediastinal disease or stage III/IV were scanned after 8 and 12 weeks of chemotherapy, respectively. Radiotherapy fields were determined before starting chemotherapy based on baseline computed tomography scans. RESULTS: After chemotherapy, six of 81 patients had residual [(18)F]FDG-PET-positive sites, all in sites for which radiotherapy was planned. Four of the six patients with positive [(18)F]FDG-PET scans after chemotherapy experienced relapse compared with just three of 75 patients with negative [(18)F]FDG-PET scans. At a median follow-up of 4 years, the freedom from progression (FFP) was 96% in postchemotherapy [(18)F]FDG-PET-negative patients versus 33% in [(18)F]FDG-PET-positive patients (P < .0003). In a bivariate Cox model, [(18)F]FDG-PET positivity after chemotherapy remained a highly significant predictor of progression-free survival even after controlling for bulky disease and International Prognostic Score more than 2. CONCLUSION: These data indicate that PET status after chemotherapy is strongly predictive of FFP with the Stanford V regimen despite the use of consolidative radiotherapy. These results have implications for the design of clinical trials adapted to functional imaging.
PURPOSE: To correlate [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography ([(18)F]FDG-PET) status after chemotherapy, but before radiation, with outcome in patients treated with the Stanford V regimen. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed retrospectively 81 patients with Hodgkin's disease who had serial [(18)F]FDG-PET scans performed at baseline and again at the completion of Stanford V chemotherapy, before planned radiotherapy. Patients with favorable stage I/II (nonbulky mediastinal disease) and those with bulky mediastinal disease or stage III/IV were scanned after 8 and 12 weeks of chemotherapy, respectively. Radiotherapy fields were determined before starting chemotherapy based on baseline computed tomography scans. RESULTS: After chemotherapy, six of 81 patients had residual [(18)F]FDG-PET-positive sites, all in sites for which radiotherapy was planned. Four of the six patients with positive [(18)F]FDG-PET scans after chemotherapy experienced relapse compared with just three of 75 patients with negative [(18)F]FDG-PET scans. At a median follow-up of 4 years, the freedom from progression (FFP) was 96% in postchemotherapy [(18)F]FDG-PET-negative patients versus 33% in [(18)F]FDG-PET-positive patients (P < .0003). In a bivariate Cox model, [(18)F]FDG-PET positivity after chemotherapy remained a highly significant predictor of progression-free survival even after controlling for bulky disease and International Prognostic Score more than 2. CONCLUSION: These data indicate that PET status after chemotherapy is strongly predictive of FFP with the Stanford V regimen despite the use of consolidative radiotherapy. These results have implications for the design of clinical trials adapted to functional imaging.
Authors: Kara M Kelly; Richard Sposto; Raymond Hutchinson; Vickie Massey; Kathleen McCarten; Sherrie Perkins; Mark Lones; Doojduen Villaluna; Michael Weiner Journal: Blood Date: 2010-11-15 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Debra L Friedman; Lu Chen; Suzanne Wolden; Allen Buxton; Kathleen McCarten; Thomas J FitzGerald; Sandra Kessel; Pedro A De Alarcon; Allen R Chen; Nathan Kobrinsky; Peter Ehrlich; Robert E Hutchison; Louis S Constine; Cindy L Schwartz Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-10-13 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Sarah A Milgrom; Chelsea C Pinnix; Hubert Chuang; Yasuhiro Oki; Mani Akhtari; Osama Mawlawi; Naveen Garg; Jillian R Gunther; Jay P Reddy; Grace L Smith; Eric Rohren; Frederick B Hagemeister; Hun J Lee; Luis E Fayad; Wenli Dong; Eleanor M Osborne; Zeinab Abou Yehia; Michelle Fanale; Bouthaina S Dabaja Journal: Br J Haematol Date: 2017-08-18 Impact factor: 6.998
Authors: Phuoc T Tran; Pavan K Bendapudi; H Jill Lin; Peter Choi; Shan Koh; Joy Chen; George Horng; Nicholas P Hughes; Lawrence H Schwartz; Vincent A Miller; Toshiyuki Kawashima; Toshio Kitamura; David Paik; Dean W Felsher Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2011-10-05 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Shonit Punwani; Stuart A Taylor; Ziauddin Z Saad; Alan Bainbridge; Ashley Groves; Stephen Daw; Ananth Shankar; Steve Halligan; Paul D Humphries Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-11-30 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Lioe-Fee de Geus-Oei; Dennis Vriens; Anne I J Arens; Martin Hutchings; Wim J G Oyen Journal: Cancer Imaging Date: 2012-09-28 Impact factor: 3.909
Authors: Diane Tseng; Leelanand P Rachakonda; Zheng Su; Ranjana Advani; Sandra Horning; Richard T Hoppe; Andrew Quon; Edward E Graves; Billy W Loo; Phuoc T Tran Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2012-01-19 Impact factor: 3.481