BACKGROUND: [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (PET) is emerging as a strong diagnostic and prognostic tool in follicular lymphoma (FL) patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a subset analysis of the FOLL05 trial (NCT00774826), we investigated the prognostic role of post-induction PET (PI-PET) scan. Patients were eligible to this study if they had a PI-PET scan carried out within 3 months from the end of induction immunochemotherapy. Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary study end point. RESULTS: A total of 202 patients were eligible and analysed for this study. The median age was 55 years (range 33-75). Overall, PI-PET was defined as positive in 49 (24%) patients. Conventional response assessment with CT scan was substantially modified by PET: 15% (22/145) of patients considered as having a complete response (CR) after CT were considered as having partial response (PR) after PI-PET and 53% (30/57) patients considered as having a PR after CT were considered as a CR after PI-PET. With a median follow-up of 34 months, the 3-year PFS was 66% and 35%, respectively, for patients with negative and positive PI-PET (P<0.001). At multivariate analysis, PI-PET (hazard ratio 2.57, 95% confidence interval 1.52-4.34, P<0.001) was independent of conventional response, FLIPI and treatment arm. Also, the prognostic role of PI-PET was maintained within each FLIPI risk group. CONCLUSIONS: In FL patients, PI-PET substantially modifies response assessment and is strongly predictive for the risk of progression. PET should be considered in further updates of response criteria.
BACKGROUND: [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (PET) is emerging as a strong diagnostic and prognostic tool in follicular lymphoma (FL) patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a subset analysis of the FOLL05 trial (NCT00774826), we investigated the prognostic role of post-induction PET (PI-PET) scan. Patients were eligible to this study if they had a PI-PET scan carried out within 3 months from the end of induction immunochemotherapy. Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary study end point. RESULTS: A total of 202 patients were eligible and analysed for this study. The median age was 55 years (range 33-75). Overall, PI-PET was defined as positive in 49 (24%) patients. Conventional response assessment with CT scan was substantially modified by PET: 15% (22/145) of patients considered as having a complete response (CR) after CT were considered as having partial response (PR) after PI-PET and 53% (30/57) patients considered as having a PR after CT were considered as a CR after PI-PET. With a median follow-up of 34 months, the 3-year PFS was 66% and 35%, respectively, for patients with negative and positive PI-PET (P<0.001). At multivariate analysis, PI-PET (hazard ratio 2.57, 95% confidence interval 1.52-4.34, P<0.001) was independent of conventional response, FLIPI and treatment arm. Also, the prognostic role of PI-PET was maintained within each FLIPI risk group. CONCLUSIONS: In FL patients, PI-PET substantially modifies response assessment and is strongly predictive for the risk of progression. PET should be considered in further updates of response criteria.
Authors: Kami Maddocks; Paul M Barr; Bruce D Cheson; Richard F Little; Lawrence Baizer; Brad S Kahl; John P Leonard; Nathan Fowler; Leo I Gordon; Brian K Link; Jonathan W Friedberg; Stephen M Ansell Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2016-12-31 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Stefan Alig; Vindi Jurinovic; Mohammad Shahrokh Esfahani; Sarah Haebe; Verena Passerini; Johannes C Hellmuth; Erik Gaitzsch; William Keay; Natyra Tahiri; Anna Zoellner; Andreas Rosenwald; Wolfram Klapper; Harald Stein; Alfred Feller; German Ott; Annette M Staiger; Heike Horn; Martin L Hansmann; Christiane Pott; Michael Unterhalt; Christian Schmidt; Martin Dreyling; Ash A Alizadeh; Wolfgang Hiddemann; Eva Hoster; Oliver Weigert Journal: Blood Adv Date: 2020-09-22
Authors: F R Mauro; S Chauvie; F Paoloni; A Biggi; G Cimino; A Rago; M Gentile; F Morabito; M Coscia; M Bellò; G M Sacchetti; D Rossi; L Laurenti; F Autore; M Campanelli; F Trastulli; E Nicolai; M Riminucci; G Gaidano; A Guarini; A Gallamini; R Foà Journal: Leukemia Date: 2015-02-04 Impact factor: 11.528
Authors: Sun Ha Boo; Joo Hyun O; Soo Jin Kwon; Ie Ryung Yoo; Sung Hoon Kim; Gyeong Sin Park; Byung Ock Choi; Seung Eun Jung; Seok-Goo Cho Journal: Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-06-29