OBJECTIVE: To compare two different methods for the interpretation of interim PET/CT (PET/CT-i) in lymphomas, and to establish which one best predicts a complete metabolic response (CMR) in the PET/CT study at the end of treatment (PET/CT-et). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective longitudinal analysis of the PET/CT studies for staging (PET/CT-s), PET/CT-i and PET/CT-et of 65 patients, 35 Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL) and 30 Non-HL. The PET/CT-i was performed between the second and fourth chemotherapy cycle. It was interpreted using two different criteria: qualitative criteria (5 point visual scale), semiquantitative criteria (percentage difference between the lesion with more SUVmax in the PET/CT-s and PET/CT-i). We analyzed the likelihood of obtaining a CMR in the PET/CT-et according to the results obtained on the PET/CT-i with these two criteria. RESULTS: We obtained sensitivity (S), specificity (Sp), positive predictive values (PPV), negative predictive values (NPV) and likelihood ratio (LR) for the qualitative/semiquantitative method of 91%/80%, 76.2%/67%, 88.9%/83.3%, 80%/60.9% and 32%/7.8%, respectively, to predict a CMR in the PET/CT-et. There were no statistically significant differences between the LR of both methods (p=0.1942). CONCLUSION: We found clear differences in S, Sp, PPV and NPV between both interpretation criteria for the PET/CT-i to predict a CMR in the PET/CT-et. Nevertheless, we cannot confirm the superiority of the qualitative method over the semiqualitative method for this purpose as no statistically significance differences were found in their LR in our study.
OBJECTIVE: To compare two different methods for the interpretation of interim PET/CT (PET/CT-i) in lymphomas, and to establish which one best predicts a complete metabolic response (CMR) in the PET/CT study at the end of treatment (PET/CT-et). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective longitudinal analysis of the PET/CT studies for staging (PET/CT-s), PET/CT-i and PET/CT-et of 65 patients, 35 Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL) and 30 Non-HL. The PET/CT-i was performed between the second and fourth chemotherapy cycle. It was interpreted using two different criteria: qualitative criteria (5 point visual scale), semiquantitative criteria (percentage difference between the lesion with more SUVmax in the PET/CT-s and PET/CT-i). We analyzed the likelihood of obtaining a CMR in the PET/CT-et according to the results obtained on the PET/CT-i with these two criteria. RESULTS: We obtained sensitivity (S), specificity (Sp), positive predictive values (PPV), negative predictive values (NPV) and likelihood ratio (LR) for the qualitative/semiquantitative method of 91%/80%, 76.2%/67%, 88.9%/83.3%, 80%/60.9% and 32%/7.8%, respectively, to predict a CMR in the PET/CT-et. There were no statistically significant differences between the LR of both methods (p=0.1942). CONCLUSION: We found clear differences in S, Sp, PPV and NPV between both interpretation criteria for the PET/CT-i to predict a CMR in the PET/CT-et. Nevertheless, we cannot confirm the superiority of the qualitative method over the semiqualitative method for this purpose as no statistically significance differences were found in their LR in our study.
Authors: Ana Jiménez-Ballvé; María Jesús Pérez-Castejón; Roberto C Delgado-Bolton; Cristina Sánchez-Enrique; Isidre Vilacosta; David Vivas; Carmen Olmos; Manuel E Fuentes Ferrer; José L Carreras-Delgado Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2016-09-05 Impact factor: 9.236