BACKGROUND: Although convincing data exist regarding the prognostic utility of positron emission tomographic (PET)-computed tomographic (CT) imaging in Hodgkin lymphoma and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, its prognostic utility both during treatment and immediately after treatment have not been systematically evaluated in a large mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) patient cohort to support its use in clinical practice. METHODS: The authors conducted a retrospective cohort study to examine the prognostic utility of PET-CT imaging in a uniform MCL patient cohort undergoing dose-intensive chemotherapy (R-HyCVAD) in the frontline setting. The primary study endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). PET-CT images were centrally reviewed for the purposes of this study using standardized response criteria. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients with advanced stage MCL with PET-CT data were identified. With median follow-up of 32 months, 3-year PFS and OS estimates were 76% (95% confidence interval [CI], 64%-84%) and 84% (95% CI, 72%-90%), respectively. Interim PET-CT status was not associated with PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.9; 95% CI, 0.3-2.7; P = .8) or OS (HR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.1-2.9; P = .5). Post-treatment PET-CT status was statistically significantly associated with PFS (HR, 5.2; 95% CI, 2.0-13.6; P = .001) and trended toward significant for OS (HR, 2.8; 95% CI, 0.8-9.6; P = .07). CONCLUSIONS: These data do not support the prognostic utility of PET-CT in pretreatment and interim treatment settings. A positive PET-CT after the completion of therapy identifies a patient subset with an inferior PFS and a trend toward inferior OS.
BACKGROUND: Although convincing data exist regarding the prognostic utility of positron emission tomographic (PET)-computed tomographic (CT) imaging in Hodgkin lymphoma and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, its prognostic utility both during treatment and immediately after treatment have not been systematically evaluated in a large mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) patient cohort to support its use in clinical practice. METHODS: The authors conducted a retrospective cohort study to examine the prognostic utility of PET-CT imaging in a uniform MCL patient cohort undergoing dose-intensive chemotherapy (R-HyCVAD) in the frontline setting. The primary study endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). PET-CT images were centrally reviewed for the purposes of this study using standardized response criteria. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients with advanced stage MCL with PET-CT data were identified. With median follow-up of 32 months, 3-year PFS and OS estimates were 76% (95% confidence interval [CI], 64%-84%) and 84% (95% CI, 72%-90%), respectively. Interim PET-CT status was not associated with PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.9; 95% CI, 0.3-2.7; P = .8) or OS (HR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.1-2.9; P = .5). Post-treatment PET-CT status was statistically significantly associated with PFS (HR, 5.2; 95% CI, 2.0-13.6; P = .001) and trended toward significant for OS (HR, 2.8; 95% CI, 0.8-9.6; P = .07). CONCLUSIONS: These data do not support the prognostic utility of PET-CT in pretreatment and interim treatment settings. A positive PET-CT after the completion of therapy identifies a patient subset with an inferior PFS and a trend toward inferior OS.
Authors: Stephen E Spurgeon; Brian G Till; Peter Martin; Andre H Goy; Martin P Dreyling; Ajay K Gopal; Michael LeBlanc; John P Leonard; Jonathan W Friedberg; Lawrence Baizer; Richard F Little; Brad S Kahl; Mitchell R Smith Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2016-12-31 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: S Robinson; P Dreger; D Caballero; P Corradini; C Geisler; M Ghielmini; S Le Gouill; E Kimby; S Rule; U Vitolo; M Dreyling; O Hermine Journal: Leukemia Date: 2014-07-18 Impact factor: 11.528
Authors: Arne Kolstad; Anna Laurell; Mats Jerkeman; Kirsten Grønbæk; Erkki Elonen; Riikka Räty; Lone Bredo Pedersen; Annika Loft; Trond Velde Bogsrud; Eva Kimby; Per Boye Hansen; Unn-Merete Fagerli; Herman Nilsson-Ehle; Grete Fossum Lauritzsen; Anne Kristine Lehmann; Christer Sundstrom; Marja-Liisa Karjalainen-Lindsberg; Elisabeth Ralfkiaer; Mats Ehinger; Jan Delabie; Hans Bentzen; Jukka Schildt; Kamelia Kostova-Aherdan; Henrik Frederiksen; Peter de Nully Brown; Christian H Geisler Journal: Blood Date: 2014-03-20 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Erik Magnusson; Qing Cao; Michael A Linden; Jerry Frolich; Vidhu Anand; Linda J Burns; Veronika Bachanova Journal: Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk Date: 2013-11-15