PURPOSE: The role of interim PET/CT in guiding therapeutic strategies in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is debated, mainly because interpretation rules vary among centres. This study aimed to explore the reproducibility and confirm the prognostic value of early PET/CT using the Deauville criteria and ΔSUVmax. METHODS: This international confirmatory study retrospectively evaluated 114 patients with newly diagnosed DLBCL treated with a rituximab-containing regimen. All patients underwent ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT at baseline (PET0) and after two cycles (PET2), with no therapy change based on the latter. Scans were interpreted by three observers using the Deauville five-point scale and ΔSUVmax between PET0 and PET2 was calculated. Interpretations were evaluated for interobserver agreement and for progression-free survival (PFS) prediction. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 39 months. Early PET/CT was predictive of outcome when interpreted with the Deauville criteria and ΔSUVmax. Using the five-point scale, the overall kappa value was 0.66 with the reference background set in the liver (score ≥4) and interobserver agreement was even better using a 66% ΔSUVmax cut-off (κ = 0.83). Moreover, the prognostic value of interim PET was slightly inferior when using a Deauville score ≥4 than when using a 66% ΔSUVmax cut-off: for the Deauville score the 3-year PFS estimate was 59% (45-73%) in PET2-positive patients vs. 81% (71-91%) in PET2-negative patients (P = 0.003); for the 66% ΔSUVmax cut-off the 3-year PFS estimate was 44% (23-65%) in PET2-positive patients vs. 79% (70-88%) in PET2-negative patients (P = 0.0002). CONCLUSION: Although the Deauville criteria are valid for assessing the prognostic value of early PET/CT in DLBCL, computation of the ΔSUVmax leads to better performance and interobserver reproducibility, and should be preferred when a baseline scan is available.
PURPOSE: The role of interim PET/CT in guiding therapeutic strategies in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is debated, mainly because interpretation rules vary among centres. This study aimed to explore the reproducibility and confirm the prognostic value of early PET/CT using the Deauville criteria and ΔSUVmax. METHODS: This international confirmatory study retrospectively evaluated 114 patients with newly diagnosed DLBCL treated with a rituximab-containing regimen. All patients underwent ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT at baseline (PET0) and after two cycles (PET2), with no therapy change based on the latter. Scans were interpreted by three observers using the Deauville five-point scale and ΔSUVmax between PET0 and PET2 was calculated. Interpretations were evaluated for interobserver agreement and for progression-free survival (PFS) prediction. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 39 months. Early PET/CT was predictive of outcome when interpreted with the Deauville criteria and ΔSUVmax. Using the five-point scale, the overall kappa value was 0.66 with the reference background set in the liver (score ≥4) and interobserver agreement was even better using a 66% ΔSUVmax cut-off (κ = 0.83). Moreover, the prognostic value of interim PET was slightly inferior when using a Deauville score ≥4 than when using a 66% ΔSUVmax cut-off: for the Deauville score the 3-year PFS estimate was 59% (45-73%) in PET2-positive patients vs. 81% (71-91%) in PET2-negative patients (P = 0.003); for the 66% ΔSUVmax cut-off the 3-year PFS estimate was 44% (23-65%) in PET2-positive patients vs. 79% (70-88%) in PET2-negative patients (P = 0.0002). CONCLUSION: Although the Deauville criteria are valid for assessing the prognostic value of early PET/CT in DLBCL, computation of the ΔSUVmax leads to better performance and interobserver reproducibility, and should be preferred when a baseline scan is available.
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: M Fabel; H von Tengg-Kobligk; F L Giesel; L Bornemann; V Dicken; A Kopp-Schneider; C Moser; S Delorme; H-U Kauczor Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2008-02-15 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Heiko Schöder; Andrew D Zelenetz; Paul Hamlin; Somali Gavane; Steven Horwitz; Matthew Matasar; Alison Moskowitz; Ariela Noy; Lia Palomba; Carol Portlock; David Straus; Ravinder Grewal; Jocelyn C Migliacci; Steven M Larson; Craig H Moskowitz Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2015-12-30 Impact factor: 10.057
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: Catherine S Diefenbach; Joseph M Connors; Jonathan W Friedberg; John P Leonard; Brad S Kahl; Richard F Little; Lawrence Baizer; Andrew M Evens; Richard T Hoppe; Kara M Kelly; Daniel O Persky; Anas Younes; Lale Kostakaglu; Nancy L Bartlett Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2016-12-31 Impact factor: 13.506