PURPOSE: Interim 2-[(18)F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG PET) has shown to be an accurate predictor of prognosis in Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL). However, FDG PET response criteria are a matter of ongoing debate. The aim of this study was to confirm the prognostic value of interim PET/CT in HL patients treated with an interim response-adapted strategy and to compare the respective performances of different published criteria. METHODS: Newly diagnosed patients with HL underwent interim PET/CT after four courses of Adriamycin, bleomycin, vinblastine and dacarbazine (ABVD). The treatment strategy was adapted according to prognostic factors at diagnosis and interim PET/CT and CT results. PET images were prospectively interpreted visually: a negative result was defined as no residual uptake above local background. All other findings were considered as positive. Retrospectively, interim PET/CT was analysed according to International Harmonization Project (IHP), Gallamini and London criteria RESULTS: The analysis included 90 patients; 6 of 31 patients with positive interim PET/CT and 7 of 59 patients with negative interim result presented treatment failure. The negative predictive value (NPV) and positive predictive value (PPV) for predicting 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 95 and 16%, respectively. With the other criteria, NPV remained very high (from 95 to 96%). The PPV increased from 19 to 45% according to the threshold used. Interim PET/CT was significantly correlated with PFS with Gallamini (p = 0.01) and London criteria (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Our study confirms the high NPV of interim PET/CT for predicting treatment outcome in HL and a probably better prognostic value using a higher threshold for positivity even after four cycles of chemotherapy as used in Gallamini and London criteria.
PURPOSE: Interim 2-[(18)F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG PET) has shown to be an accurate predictor of prognosis in Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL). However, FDG PET response criteria are a matter of ongoing debate. The aim of this study was to confirm the prognostic value of interim PET/CT in HL patients treated with an interim response-adapted strategy and to compare the respective performances of different published criteria. METHODS: Newly diagnosed patients with HL underwent interim PET/CT after four courses of Adriamycin, bleomycin, vinblastine and dacarbazine (ABVD). The treatment strategy was adapted according to prognostic factors at diagnosis and interim PET/CT and CT results. PET images were prospectively interpreted visually: a negative result was defined as no residual uptake above local background. All other findings were considered as positive. Retrospectively, interim PET/CT was analysed according to International Harmonization Project (IHP), Gallamini and London criteria RESULTS: The analysis included 90 patients; 6 of 31 patients with positive interim PET/CT and 7 of 59 patients with negative interim result presented treatment failure. The negative predictive value (NPV) and positive predictive value (PPV) for predicting 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 95 and 16%, respectively. With the other criteria, NPV remained very high (from 95 to 96%). The PPV increased from 19 to 45% according to the threshold used. Interim PET/CT was significantly correlated with PFS with Gallamini (p = 0.01) and London criteria (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Our study confirms the high NPV of interim PET/CT for predicting treatment outcome in HL and a probably better prognostic value using a higher threshold for positivity even after four cycles of chemotherapy as used in Gallamini and London criteria.
Authors: B D Cheson; S J Horning; B Coiffier; M A Shipp; R I Fisher; J M Connors; T A Lister; J Vose; A Grillo-López; A Hagenbeek; F Cabanillas; D Klippensten; W Hiddemann; R Castellino; N L Harris; J O Armitage; W Carter; R Hoppe; G P Canellos Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1999-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Sally F Barrington; Wendi Qian; Edward J Somer; Antonella Franceschetto; Bruno Bagni; Eva Brun; Helén Almquist; Annika Loft; Liselotte Højgaard; Massimo Federico; Andrea Gallamini; Paul Smith; Peter Johnson; John Radford; Michael J O'Doherty Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2010-05-27 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Bruce D Cheson; Beate Pfistner; Malik E Juweid; Randy D Gascoyne; Lena Specht; Sandra J Horning; Bertrand Coiffier; Richard I Fisher; Anton Hagenbeek; Emanuele Zucca; Steven T Rosen; Sigrid Stroobants; T Andrew Lister; Richard T Hoppe; Martin Dreyling; Kensei Tobinai; Julie M Vose; Joseph M Connors; Massimo Federico; Volker Diehl Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-01-22 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: R Peto; M C Pike; P Armitage; N E Breslow; D R Cox; S V Howard; N Mantel; K McPherson; J Peto; P G Smith Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 1977-01 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Lale Kostakoglu; Heiko Schöder; Jeffrey L Johnson; Nathan C Hall; Lawrence H Schwartz; David J Straus; Ann S LaCasce; Sin-Ho Jung; Nancy L Bartlett; George P Canellos; Bruce D Cheson Journal: Leuk Lymphoma Date: 2012-08-28
Authors: Emmanuel Itti; Michel Meignan; Alina Berriolo-Riedinger; Alberto Biggi; Amanda F Cashen; Pierre Véra; Hervé Tilly; Barry A Siegel; Andrea Gallamini; René-Olivier Casasnovas; Corinne Haioun Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2013-05-07 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Paul Flechsig; Christina Walker; Clemens Kratochwil; Laila König; Andrei Iagura; Jan Moltz; Tim Holland-Letz; Hans-Ulrich Kauczor; Uwe Haberkorn; Frederik L Giesel Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2018-08 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: John T Sandlund; R Paul Guillerman; Sherrie L Perkins; C Ross Pinkerton; Angelo Rosolen; Catherine Patte; Alfred Reiter; Mitchell S Cairo Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-05-04 Impact factor: 44.544