PURPOSE: The presence of a bulky tumour at staging on CT is an independent prognostic factor in malignant lymphomas. However, its prognostic value is limited in diffuse disease. Total metabolic tumour volume (TMTV) determined on (18)F-FDG PET/CT could give a better evaluation of the total tumour burden and may help patient stratification. Different methods of TMTV measurement established in phantoms simulating lymphoma tumours were investigated and validated in 40 patients with Hodgkin lymphoma and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. METHODS: Data were processed by two nuclear medicine physicians in Reggio Emilia and Créteil. Nineteen phantoms filled with (18)F-saline were scanned; these comprised spherical or irregular volumes from 0.5 to 650 cm(3) with tumour-to-background ratios from 1.65 to 40. Volumes were measured with different SUVmax thresholds. In patients, TMTV was measured on PET at staging by two methods: volumes of individual lesions were measured using a fixed 41% SUVmax threshold (TMTV41) and a variable visually adjusted SUVmax threshold (TMTVvar). RESULTS: In phantoms, the 41% threshold gave the best concordance between measured and actual volumes. Interobserver agreement was almost perfect. In patients, the agreement between the reviewers for TMTV41 measurement was substantial (ρ c = 0.986, CI 0.97 - 0.99) and the difference between the means was not significant (212 ± 218 cm(3) for Créteil vs. 206 ± 219 cm(3) for Reggio Emilia, P = 0.65). By contrast the agreement was poor for TMTVvar. There was a significant direct correlation between TMTV41 and normalized LDH (r = 0.652, CI 0.42 - 0.8, P <0.001). Higher disease stages and bulky tumour were associated with higher TMTV41, but high TMTV41 could be found in patients with stage 1/2 or nonbulky tumour. CONCLUSION: Measurement of baseline TMTV in lymphoma using a fixed 41% SUVmax threshold is reproducible and correlates with the other parameters for tumour mass evaluation. It should be evaluated in prospective studies.
PURPOSE: The presence of a bulky tumour at staging on CT is an independent prognostic factor in malignant lymphomas. However, its prognostic value is limited in diffuse disease. Total metabolic tumour volume (TMTV) determined on (18)F-FDG PET/CT could give a better evaluation of the total tumour burden and may help patient stratification. Different methods of TMTV measurement established in phantoms simulating lymphoma tumours were investigated and validated in 40 patients with Hodgkin lymphoma and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. METHODS: Data were processed by two nuclear medicine physicians in Reggio Emilia and Créteil. Nineteen phantoms filled with (18)F-saline were scanned; these comprised spherical or irregular volumes from 0.5 to 650 cm(3) with tumour-to-background ratios from 1.65 to 40. Volumes were measured with different SUVmax thresholds. In patients, TMTV was measured on PET at staging by two methods: volumes of individual lesions were measured using a fixed 41% SUVmax threshold (TMTV41) and a variable visually adjusted SUVmax threshold (TMTVvar). RESULTS: In phantoms, the 41% threshold gave the best concordance between measured and actual volumes. Interobserver agreement was almost perfect. In patients, the agreement between the reviewers for TMTV41 measurement was substantial (ρ c = 0.986, CI 0.97 - 0.99) and the difference between the means was not significant (212 ± 218 cm(3) for Créteil vs. 206 ± 219 cm(3) for Reggio Emilia, P = 0.65). By contrast the agreement was poor for TMTVvar. There was a significant direct correlation between TMTV41 and normalized LDH (r = 0.652, CI 0.42 - 0.8, P <0.001). Higher disease stages and bulky tumour were associated with higher TMTV41, but high TMTV41 could be found in patients with stage 1/2 or nonbulky tumour. CONCLUSION: Measurement of baseline TMTV in lymphoma using a fixed 41% SUVmax threshold is reproducible and correlates with the other parameters for tumour mass evaluation. It should be evaluated in prospective studies.
Authors: Virginie Frings; Adrianus J de Langen; Egbert F Smit; Floris H P van Velden; Otto S Hoekstra; Harm van Tinteren; Ronald Boellaard Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2010-11-15 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Walter Jentzen; Lutz Freudenberg; Ernst G Eising; Melanie Heinze; Wolfgang Brandau; Andreas Bockisch Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Dominic A X Schinagl; Wouter V Vogel; Aswin L Hoffmann; Jorn A van Dalen; Wim J Oyen; Johannes H A M Kaanders Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-11-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Michael Pfreundschuh; Anthony D Ho; Eva Cavallin-Stahl; Max Wolf; Ruth Pettengell; Ingrid Vasova; Andrew Belch; Jan Walewski; Pier-Luigi Zinzani; Walter Mingrone; Stein Kvaloy; Ofer Shpilberg; Ulrich Jaeger; Mads Hansen; Claudia Corrado; Adriana Scheliga; Markus Loeffler; Evelyn Kuhnt Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2008-04-08 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Qaid Ahmed Shagera; Gi Jeong Cheon; Youngil Koh; Min Young Yoo; Keon Wook Kang; Dong Soo Lee; E Edmund Kim; Sung-Soo Yoon; June-Key Chung Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-04-02 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Kimiteru Ito; Heiko Schöder; Rebecca Teng; John L Humm; Ai Ni; Jedd D Wolchok; Wolfgang A Weber Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-11-28 Impact factor: 9.236