BACKGROUND: Interim FDG-PET is used for treatment tailoring in lymphoma. Deauville response criteria consist of five ordinal categories based on visual comparison of residual tumor uptake to physiological reference uptakes. However, PET-response is a continuum and visual assessments can be distorted by optical illusions. OBJECTIVES: With a novel semi-automatic quantification tool we eliminate optical illusions and extend the Deauville score to a continuous scale. PATIENTS AND METHODS: SUVpeak of residual tumors and average uptake of the liver is measured with standardized volumes of interest. The qPET value is the quotient of these measurements. Deauville scores and qPET-values were determined in 898 pediatric Hodgkin's lymphoma patients after two OEPA chemotherapy cycles. RESULTS: Deauville categories translate to thresholds on the qPET scale: Categories 3, 4, 5 correspond to qPET values of 0.95, 1.3 and 2.0, respectively. The distribution of qPET values is unimodal with a peak representing metabolically normal responses and a tail of clearly abnormal outliers. In our patients, the peak is at qPET = 0.95 coinciding with the border between Deauville 2 and 3. qPET cut values of 1.3 or 2 (determined by fitting mixture models) select abnormal metabolic responses with high sensitivity, respectively, specificity. CONCLUSIONS: qPET methodology provides semi-automatic quantification for interim FDG-PET response in lymphoma extending ordinal Deauville scoring to a continuous scale. Deauville categories correspond to certain qPET cut values. Thresholds between normal and abnormal response can be derived from the qPET-distribution without need for follow-up data. In our patients, qPET < 1.3 excludes abnormal response with high sensitivity.
BACKGROUND: Interim FDG-PET is used for treatment tailoring in lymphoma. Deauville response criteria consist of five ordinal categories based on visual comparison of residual tumor uptake to physiological reference uptakes. However, PET-response is a continuum and visual assessments can be distorted by optical illusions. OBJECTIVES: With a novel semi-automatic quantification tool we eliminate optical illusions and extend the Deauville score to a continuous scale. PATIENTS AND METHODS: SUVpeak of residual tumors and average uptake of the liver is measured with standardized volumes of interest. The qPET value is the quotient of these measurements. Deauville scores and qPET-values were determined in 898 pediatric Hodgkin's lymphomapatients after two OEPA chemotherapy cycles. RESULTS: Deauville categories translate to thresholds on the qPET scale: Categories 3, 4, 5 correspond to qPET values of 0.95, 1.3 and 2.0, respectively. The distribution of qPET values is unimodal with a peak representing metabolically normal responses and a tail of clearly abnormal outliers. In our patients, the peak is at qPET = 0.95 coinciding with the border between Deauville 2 and 3. qPET cut values of 1.3 or 2 (determined by fitting mixture models) select abnormal metabolic responses with high sensitivity, respectively, specificity. CONCLUSIONS: qPET methodology provides semi-automatic quantification for interim FDG-PET response in lymphoma extending ordinal Deauville scoring to a continuous scale. Deauville categories correspond to certain qPET cut values. Thresholds between normal and abnormal response can be derived from the qPET-distribution without need for follow-up data. In our patients, qPET < 1.3 excludes abnormal response with high sensitivity.
Authors: Juliano J Cerci; Luís F Pracchia; Camila C G Linardi; Felipe A Pitella; Dominique Delbeke; Marisa Izaki; Evelinda Trindade; José Soares; Valeria Buccheri; José C Meneghetti Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2010-08-18 Impact factor: 10.057
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: Pinki K Prasad; Lisa B Signorello; Debra L Friedman; John D Boice; Eero Pukkala Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2011-09-09 Impact factor: 3.167
Authors: Eva González-Barca; Miguel Canales; Montse Cortés; M Jesus Vidal; Antonio Salar; Albert Oriol; Joan Bargay; José L Bello; José J Sánchez; José F Tomás; Eva Donato; Secundino Ferrer; Dolores Caballero Journal: Nucl Med Commun Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 1.690
Authors: Francisco M Acosta; Jörn Berchem; Borja Martinez-Tellez; Guillermo Sanchez-Delgado; Juan M A Alcantara; Lourdes Ortiz-Alvarez; Takafumi Hamaoka; Jonatan R Ruiz Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Sally F Barrington; Elizabeth H Phillips; Nicholas Counsell; Barry Hancock; Ruth Pettengell; Peter Johnson; William Townsend; Dominic Culligan; Bilyana Popova; Laura Clifton-Hadley; Andrew McMillan; Peter Hoskin; Michael J O'Doherty; Tim Illidge; John Radford Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2019-05-21 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Kara M Kelly; Peter D Cole; Qinglin Pei; Rizvan Bush; Kenneth B Roberts; David C Hodgson; Kathleen M McCarten; Steve Y Cho; Cindy Schwartz Journal: Br J Haematol Date: 2019-06-10 Impact factor: 6.998
Authors: Georg Kuhnert; Ronald Boellaard; Sergej Sterzer; Deniz Kahraman; Matthias Scheffler; Jürgen Wolf; Markus Dietlein; Alexander Drzezga; Carsten Kobe Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-08-18 Impact factor: 9.236