Yvette L Kasamon1, Richard L Wahl. 1. Department of Oncology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. ykasamo1@jhmi.edu
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The prognostic utility of midtreatment fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (F-FDG PET) has become widely appreciated in aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and, more recently, in Hodgkin's lymphoma. Outcomes based on midtreatment FDG PET performed during primary and salvage therapy are reviewed and management strategies considered, with a focus on treatment intensification for poor-risk disease as identified by metabolic imaging. RECENT FINDINGS: PET, when performed after as few as two cycles of primary chemotherapy, is strongly prognostic in certain aggressive lymphomas and provides information independently from validated prognostic indices. What constitutes a positive or negative scan is not always clear, particularly if there is minimal tracer uptake, and the causes of false positive and false negative scans must be considered. How to tailor therapy based on the midtreatment PET result is the focus of current trials and is presently being defined for both Hodgkin's and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. SUMMARY: Early PET has the strong potential to improve clinical outcomes by sparing good-risk patients from overly aggressive treatments, and by more accurately identifying poor-risk patients so as to guide changes in management. Treatment modifications on the basis of midtreatment PET are presently best made in clinical trial settings.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The prognostic utility of midtreatment fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (F-FDG PET) has become widely appreciated in aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and, more recently, in Hodgkin's lymphoma. Outcomes based on midtreatment FDG PET performed during primary and salvage therapy are reviewed and management strategies considered, with a focus on treatment intensification for poor-risk disease as identified by metabolic imaging. RECENT FINDINGS: PET, when performed after as few as two cycles of primary chemotherapy, is strongly prognostic in certain aggressive lymphomas and provides information independently from validated prognostic indices. What constitutes a positive or negative scan is not always clear, particularly if there is minimal tracer uptake, and the causes of false positive and false negative scans must be considered. How to tailor therapy based on the midtreatment PET result is the focus of current trials and is presently being defined for both Hodgkin's and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. SUMMARY: Early PET has the strong potential to improve clinical outcomes by sparing good-risk patients from overly aggressive treatments, and by more accurately identifying poor-risk patients so as to guide changes in management. Treatment modifications on the basis of midtreatment PET are presently best made in clinical trial settings.
Authors: Ivan Aksentijevich; Richard J Jones; Richard F Ambinder; Elizabeth Garrett-Mayer; Ian W Flinn Journal: Biol Blood Marrow Transplant Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: John F Bruzzi; Homer Macapinlac; Apostolia M Tsimberidou; Mylene T Truong; Michael J Keating; Edith M Marom; Reginald F Munden Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Ralph M Meyer; Mary K Gospodarowicz; Joseph M Connors; Robert G Pearcey; Andrea Bezjak; Woodrow A Wells; Bruce F Burns; Jane N Winter; Sandra J Horning; A Rashid Dar; Marina S Djurfeldt; Keyue Ding; Lois E Shepherd Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-04-18 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Malik E Juweid; Gregory A Wiseman; Julie M Vose; Justine M Ritchie; Yusuf Menda; James E Wooldridge; Felix M Mottaghy; Eric M Rohren; Norbert M Blumstein; Alan Stolpen; Brian K Link; Sven N Reske; Michael M Graham; Bruce D Cheson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-04-18 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Heiko Schöder; Ariela Noy; Mithat Gönen; Lijun Weng; David Green; Yusuf E Erdi; Steven M Larson; Henry W D Yeung Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-04-18 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: P L Zinzani; M Tani; S Fanti; L Alinari; G Musuraca; E Marchi; V Stefoni; P Castellucci; M Fina; M Farshad; S Pileri; M Baccarani Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2006-06-09 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Carsten Kobe; Markus Dietlein; Jeremy Franklin; Jana Markova; Andreas Lohri; Holger Amthauer; Susanne Klutmann; Wolfram H Knapp; Josee M Zijlstra; Andreas Bockisch; Matthias Weckesser; Reinhard Lorenz; Mathias Schreckenberger; Roland Bares; Hans T Eich; Rolf-Peter Mueller; Michael Fuchs; Peter Borchmann; Harald Schicha; Volker Diehl; Andreas Engert Journal: Blood Date: 2008-08-29 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Tamás Györke; Attila Kollár; Gyula Bottlik; Ágota Szepesi; Imre Bodó; Tamás Masszi; Viktor Bérczi; Ildikó Garai Journal: Int J Hematol Date: 2011-03-01 Impact factor: 2.490