PURPOSE: Interim (18)F-FDG PET performed early during the course of therapy in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is a good predictor of outcome. However, interpretation criteria for interim PET for the evaluation of tumour response are still not clearly defined. The study aim was to assess whether interim PET can predict overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in DLBCL patients following three different sets of parameters, two qualitative (visual) methods and one semiquantitative. METHODS: A total of 50 newly diagnosed DLBCL patients were prospectively enrolled in this study. All patients had a PET/CT scan at diagnosis and an interim PET/CT scan after the second or third cycle of chemotherapy. Three methods of evaluation for the interim PET/CT were used: a qualitative three-point scoring (3-PS) method, a qualitative 5-PS method and a semiquantitative method (ΔSUVmax). The degree of correlation between therapy response seen on FDG PET and PFS and OS was determined. RESULTS: The analysis of the visual 3-PS method showed no statistically significant difference in PFS and OS. The estimated 5-year PFS and OS were 79 % and 92 %, respectively, in patients with an interim PET scan showing uptake not greater than in the liver versus 50 % in patients with uptake greater than in the liver, and this difference was statistically significant. The optimal cut-off value of ΔSUVmax that could predict the PFS and OS difference in patients with DLBCL was 76 % (95 % CI 62.7-89.2 %) and 75 % (95 % CI, 54.6-95.4 %), respectively. CONCLUSION: Our results support the use of liver uptake as an indicator in the qualitative evaluation of interim PET, or a ΔSUVmax greater than 75 % in semiquantitative analysis. Interim PET may predict PFS and OS and could be considered in the prognostic evaluation of DLBCL.
PURPOSE: Interim (18)F-FDG PET performed early during the course of therapy in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is a good predictor of outcome. However, interpretation criteria for interim PET for the evaluation of tumour response are still not clearly defined. The study aim was to assess whether interim PET can predict overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in DLBCL patients following three different sets of parameters, two qualitative (visual) methods and one semiquantitative. METHODS: A total of 50 newly diagnosed DLBCL patients were prospectively enrolled in this study. All patients had a PET/CT scan at diagnosis and an interim PET/CT scan after the second or third cycle of chemotherapy. Three methods of evaluation for the interim PET/CT were used: a qualitative three-point scoring (3-PS) method, a qualitative 5-PS method and a semiquantitative method (ΔSUVmax). The degree of correlation between therapy response seen on FDG PET and PFS and OS was determined. RESULTS: The analysis of the visual 3-PS method showed no statistically significant difference in PFS and OS. The estimated 5-year PFS and OS were 79 % and 92 %, respectively, in patients with an interim PET scan showing uptake not greater than in the liver versus 50 % in patients with uptake greater than in the liver, and this difference was statistically significant. The optimal cut-off value of ΔSUVmax that could predict the PFS and OS difference in patients with DLBCL was 76 % (95 % CI 62.7-89.2 %) and 75 % (95 % CI, 54.6-95.4 %), respectively. CONCLUSION: Our results support the use of liver uptake as an indicator in the qualitative evaluation of interim PET, or a ΔSUVmax greater than 75 % in semiquantitative analysis. Interim PET may predict PFS and OS and could be considered in the prognostic evaluation of DLBCL.
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: 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: P Feugier; A Van Hoof; C Sebban; P Solal-Celigny; R Bouabdallah; C Fermé; B Christian; E Lepage; H Tilly; F Morschhauser; P Gaulard; G Salles; A Bosly; C Gisselbrecht; F Reyes; B Coiffier Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-05-02 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: K Spaepen; S Stroobants; P Dupont; P Vandenberghe; J Thomas; T de Groot; J Balzarini; C De Wolf-Peeters; L Mortelmans; G Verhoef Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Mark Hertzberg; Maher K Gandhi; Judith Trotman; Belinda Butcher; John Taper; Amanda Johnston; Devinder Gill; Shir-Jing Ho; Gavin Cull; Keith Fay; Geoff Chong; Andrew Grigg; Ian D Lewis; Sam Milliken; William Renwick; Uwe Hahn; Robin Filshie; George Kannourakis; Anne-Marie Watson; Pauline Warburton; Andrew Wirth; John F Seymour; Michael S Hofman; Rodney J Hicks Journal: Haematologica Date: 2016-11-10 Impact factor: 9.941
Authors: Sally F Barrington; N George Mikhaeel; Lale Kostakoglu; Michel Meignan; Martin Hutchings; Stefan P Müeller; Lawrence H Schwartz; Emanuele Zucca; Richard I Fisher; Judith Trotman; Otto S Hoekstra; Rodney J Hicks; Michael J O'Doherty; Roland Hustinx; Alberto Biggi; Bruce D Cheson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-09-20 Impact factor: 44.544