PURPOSE: Recent advances in imaging, use of prognostic indices, and molecular profiling techniques have the potential to improve disease characterization and outcomes in lymphoma. International trials are under way to test image-based response–adapted treatment guided by early interim positron emission tomography (PET)–computed tomography (CT). Progress in imaging is influencing trial design and affecting clinical practice. In particular, a five-point scale to grade response using PET-CT, which can be adapted to suit requirements for early- and late-response assessment with good interobserver agreement, is becoming widely used both in practice- and response-adapted trials. A workshop held at the 11th International Conference on Malignant Lymphomas (ICML) in 2011 concluded that revision to current staging and response criteria was timely. METHODS: An imaging working group composed of representatives from major international cooperative groups was asked to review the literature, share knowledge about research in progress, and identify key areas for research pertaining to imaging and lymphoma. RESULTS: A working paper was circulated for comment and presented at the Fourth International Workshop on PET in Lymphoma in Menton, France, and the 12th ICML in Lugano, Switzerland, to update the International Harmonisation Project guidance regarding PET. Recommendations were made to optimize the use of PET-CT in staging and response assessment of lymphoma, including qualitative and quantitative methods. CONCLUSION: This article comprises the consensus reached to update guidance on the use of PET-CT for staging and response assessment for [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose-avid lymphomas in clinical practice and late-phase trials.
PURPOSE: Recent advances in imaging, use of prognostic indices, and molecular profiling techniques have the potential to improve disease characterization and outcomes in lymphoma. International trials are under way to test image-based response–adapted treatment guided by early interim positron emission tomography (PET)–computed tomography (CT). Progress in imaging is influencing trial design and affecting clinical practice. In particular, a five-point scale to grade response using PET-CT, which can be adapted to suit requirements for early- and late-response assessment with good interobserver agreement, is becoming widely used both in practice- and response-adapted trials. A workshop held at the 11th International Conference on Malignant Lymphomas (ICML) in 2011 concluded that revision to current staging and response criteria was timely. METHODS: An imaging working group composed of representatives from major international cooperative groups was asked to review the literature, share knowledge about research in progress, and identify key areas for research pertaining to imaging and lymphoma. RESULTS: A working paper was circulated for comment and presented at the Fourth International Workshop on PET in Lymphoma in Menton, France, and the 12th ICML in Lugano, Switzerland, to update the International Harmonisation Project guidance regarding PET. Recommendations were made to optimize the use of PET-CT in staging and response assessment of lymphoma, including qualitative and quantitative methods. CONCLUSION: This article comprises the consensus reached to update guidance on the use of PET-CT for staging and response assessment for [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose-avid lymphomas in clinical practice and late-phase trials.
Authors: Andrew Wirth; Marcus Foo; John F Seymour; Michael P Macmanus; Rodney J Hicks Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-03-04 Impact factor: 7.038
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: K Spaepen; S Stroobants; P Dupont; P Vandenberghe; J Thomas; T de Groot; J Balzarini; C De Wolf-Peeters; L Mortelmans; G Verhoef Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Henriette Quarles van Ufford; Otto Hoekstra; Marie de Haas; Rob Fijnheer; Shulamiet Wittebol; Bianca Tieks; Mark Kramer; John de Klerk Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2009-10-07 Impact factor: 3.488
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: Carsten Kobe; Ronald Boellaard; Jürgen Wolf; Georg Kuhnert; Markus Dietlein; Bernd Neumaier; Alexander Drzezga; Deniz Kahraman Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 2.895
Authors: S H Lim; S H Hyun; H S Kim; J Y Lee; K H Yoo; K S Jung; H-N Song; J Cho; S Park; Y H Ko; S J Kim; J Y Choi; W S Kim Journal: Bone Marrow Transplant Date: 2016-02-08 Impact factor: 5.483
Authors: James E McDonald; Marcus M Kessler; Michael W Gardner; Amy F Buros; James A Ntambi; Sarah Waheed; Frits van Rhee; Maurizio Zangari; Christoph J Heuck; Nathan Petty; Carolina Schinke; Sharmilan Thanendrarajan; Alan Mitchell; Antje Hoering; Bart Barlogie; Gareth J Morgan; Faith E Davies Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2016-10-03 Impact factor: 12.531