Özgür Ömür1, Yusuf Baran, Aylin Oral, Yeşim Ceylan. 1. From the Department of Nuclear Medicine (Ö.Ö. e-mail: ozomur@yahoo.com, A.O, Y.C.), Ege University School of Medicine, İzmir, Turkey; the Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics (Y.B.), İzmir Institute of Technology, İzmir, Turkey.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We aimed to evaluate the role of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography (18F-FDG PET-CT) involving care-dose unenhanced CT to detect extranodal involvement in patients with non-Hodgkin and Hodgkin lymphoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Lymphoma patients (35 Hodgkin lymphoma, 75 non-Hodgkin lymphoma) who were referred for 18F-FDG PET-CT imaging, following a diagnostic contrast-enhanced CT (CE-CT) performed within the last month, were included in our study. A total of 129 PET-CT images, and all radiologic, clinical, and pathological records of these patients were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: In total, 137 hypermetabolic extranodal infiltration sites were detected by 18F-FDG PET-CT in 62 of 110 patients. There were no positive findings by CE-CT that reflected organ involvement in 40 of 137 18F-FDG-positive sites. The κ statistics revealed fair agreement between PET-CT and CE-CT for the detection of extranodal involvement (κ=0.60). The organs showing a disagreement between the two modalities were the spleen, bone marrow, bone, and thyroid and prostate glands. In all lesions that were negative at CE-CT, there was a diffuse 18F-FDG uptake pattern in the PET-CT images. The frequency of extranodal involvement was 51% and 58% in Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients, respectively. There was a high positive correlation between the maximum standardized uptake values of the highest 18F-FDG-accumulating lymph nodes and extranodal sites (r=0.67) in patients with nodal and extranodal involvement. CONCLUSION: 18F-FDG PET-CT is a more effective technique than CE-CT for the evaluation of extranodal involvement in Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients. PET-CT has a significant advantage for the diagnosis of diffusely infiltrating organs without mass lesions or contrast enhancement compared to CE-CT.
PURPOSE: We aimed to evaluate the role of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography (18F-FDG PET-CT) involving care-dose unenhanced CT to detect extranodal involvement in patients with non-Hodgkin and Hodgkin lymphoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Lymphomapatients (35 Hodgkin lymphoma, 75 non-Hodgkin lymphoma) who were referred for 18F-FDG PET-CT imaging, following a diagnostic contrast-enhanced CT (CE-CT) performed within the last month, were included in our study. A total of 129 PET-CT images, and all radiologic, clinical, and pathological records of these patients were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: In total, 137 hypermetabolic extranodal infiltration sites were detected by 18F-FDG PET-CT in 62 of 110 patients. There were no positive findings by CE-CT that reflected organ involvement in 40 of 137 18F-FDG-positive sites. The κ statistics revealed fair agreement between PET-CT and CE-CT for the detection of extranodal involvement (κ=0.60). The organs showing a disagreement between the two modalities were the spleen, bone marrow, bone, and thyroid and prostate glands. In all lesions that were negative at CE-CT, there was a diffuse 18F-FDG uptake pattern in the PET-CT images. The frequency of extranodal involvement was 51% and 58% in Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphomapatients, respectively. There was a high positive correlation between the maximum standardized uptake values of the highest 18F-FDG-accumulating lymph nodes and extranodal sites (r=0.67) in patients with nodal and extranodal involvement. CONCLUSION: 18F-FDG PET-CT is a more effective technique than CE-CT for the evaluation of extranodal involvement in Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphomapatients. PET-CT has a significant advantage for the diagnosis of diffusely infiltrating organs without mass lesions or contrast enhancement compared to CE-CT.
Authors: Pim A de Jong; Henriette M Quarles van Ufford; Henk-Jan Baarslag; Marie J de Haas; Shulamiet H Wittebol; Lorentz G Quekel; John M de Klerk Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Niklaus G Schaefer; Thomas F Hany; Christian Taverna; Burkhardt Seifert; Katrin D M Stumpe; Gustav K von Schulthess; Gerhard W Goerres Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-07-23 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Nuno Pinto Leite; Norbert Kased; Robert F Hanna; Michele A Brown; Jose M Pereira; Rui Cunha; Claude B Sirlin Journal: Radiographics Date: 2007 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: L Kurch; R Kluge; O Sabri; L Fischer; S Wendt; H Graf Einsiedel; S Starke; J-S Kühl; H Christiansen; F W Hirsch; I Sorge; C Roth Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2021-07-03 Impact factor: 3.138
Authors: Luigi Rigacci; Sofia Kovalchuk; Valentina Berti; Benedetta Puccini; Lara Mannelli; Gemma Benelli; Catia Dini; Alberto Pupi; Alberto Bosi Journal: World J Nucl Med Date: 2018 Jul-Sep