PURPOSE: Positron emission tomography (PET) was evaluated in low-grade non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) to determine its impact on staging and management and to compare PET and gallium scans. METHODS: PET resulted in management plan changes in 74 patients with untreated low-grade NHL stages I to III. Patient outcomes to 12 months were documented. RESULTS: PET identified additional lesions in 50% of patients, led to a change in stage in 32%, and had a significant impact on management in 34%. Inferior progression-free survival was noted in patients with additional lesions detected by PET (p=0.001) and in the 28% of patients upstaged by PET to stage III or IV (p=0.024). In a subset of 16 patients undergoing both PET and gallium scans, PET was found to be superior. CONCLUSION: PET has a major role in the management of low-grade NHL in addition to its proven role in aggressive lymphoma.
PURPOSE: Positron emission tomography (PET) was evaluated in low-grade non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) to determine its impact on staging and management and to compare PET and gallium scans. METHODS: PET resulted in management plan changes in 74 patients with untreated low-grade NHL stages I to III. Patient outcomes to 12 months were documented. RESULTS: PET identified additional lesions in 50% of patients, led to a change in stage in 32%, and had a significant impact on management in 34%. Inferior progression-free survival was noted in patients with additional lesions detected by PET (p=0.001) and in the 28% of patients upstaged by PET to stage III or IV (p=0.024). In a subset of 16 patients undergoing both PET and gallium scans, PET was found to be superior. CONCLUSION: PET has a major role in the management of low-grade NHL in addition to its proven role in aggressive lymphoma.
Authors: Andrew Wirth; John F Seymour; Rodney J Hicks; Robert Ware; Richard Fisher; Miles Prince; Michael P MacManus; Gail Ryan; Henry Januszewicz; Max Wolf Journal: Am J Med Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: H Schöder; J Meta; C Yap; M Ariannejad; J Rao; M E Phelps; P E Valk; J Sayre; J Czernin Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2001-08 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Martha Hoffmann; Kurt Kletter; Alexander Becherer; Ulrich Jäger; Andreas Chott; Markus Raderer Journal: Oncology Date: 2003 Impact factor: 2.935
Authors: Hyun Jeong Kim; Jiyoun Choi; Yong Hyu Jeong; Kwan Hyeong Jo; Jae-Hoon Lee; Arthur Cho; Mijin Yun; Jong Doo Lee; Young Tae Kim; Won Jun Kang Journal: Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2013-09-06
Authors: Manette A W Dinnessen; Marjolein W M van der Poel; Sanne H Tonino; Otto Visser; Nicole M A Blijlevens; Daphne de Jong; King H Lam; Marie José Kersten; Pieternella J Lugtenburg; Avinash G Dinmohamed Journal: Leukemia Date: 2020-10-12 Impact factor: 11.528
Authors: Bruce E Hillner; Tor D Tosteson; Anna N A Tosteson; Qianfei Wang; Yunjie Song; Tracy Onega; Lucy G Hanna; Barry A Siegel Journal: Med Care Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Bruce E Hillner; Anna N Tosteson; Tor D Tosteson; Qianfei Wang; Yunjie Song; Lucy G Hanna; Barry A Siegel Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2013-11-12 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Constantin Lapa; Ursula Nestle; Nathalie L Albert; Christian Baues; Ambros Beer; Andreas Buck; Volker Budach; Rebecca Bütof; Stephanie E Combs; Thorsten Derlin; Matthias Eiber; Wolfgang P Fendler; Christian Furth; Cihan Gani; Eleni Gkika; Anca-L Grosu; Christoph Henkenberens; Harun Ilhan; Steffen Löck; Simone Marnitz-Schulze; Matthias Miederer; Michael Mix; Nils H Nicolay; Maximilian Niyazi; Christoph Pöttgen; Claus M Rödel; Imke Schatka; Sarah M Schwarzenboeck; Andrei S Todica; Wolfgang Weber; Simone Wegen; Thomas Wiegel; Constantinos Zamboglou; Daniel Zips; Klaus Zöphel; Sebastian Zschaeck; Daniela Thorwarth; Esther G C Troost Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2021-07-14 Impact factor: 3.621