INTRODUCTION: This study prospectively evaluated whole-body magnetic resonance/diffusion-weighted imaging with body signal suppression (WB-MR/DWIBS) reliability compared to (18)F-FDG PET/CT in the treatment response assessment of classic Hodgkin lymphomas (HL) and aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphomas (aNHL). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-seven consecutive patients were prospectively enrolled at the time of diagnosis. Eighteen (11 HL and seven aNHL) were considered for the analysis. They received chemo/radiotherapy as induction and completed post-treatment evaluation performing both (18)F-FDG PET/CT and WB-MR/DWIBS. The revised response criteria for malignant lymphomas were used to assess the response to treatment. We evaluated the agreement between the two methods by Cohen's K test. Post-therapy WB-MR/DWIBS sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy were then calculated, considering the 12 months of follow-up period as the gold standard. RESULTS: By using an evaluation on a lesion-by-lesion basis, WB-MR/DWIBS and (18)F-FDG PET/CT showed an overall good agreement (K = 0.796, 95% IC = 0.651-0.941), especially in the evaluation of the nodal basins in aNHL (K = 0.937, 95% IC = 0.814-1). In reference to the revised response criteria for malignant lymphomas, the two methods showed a good agreement (K = 0.824, 95% IC = 0.493-1). Post-therapy sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy of WB-MR/DWIBS were 43, 91, 75, 71 and 72%, respectively. CONCLUSION: WB-MR/DWIBS seems to be an appropriate method for the post-treatment assessment of patients affected by HL and aNHL. The small discrepancies between the two methods found within HL could be due to the biological and metabolic behavior of this group of diseases. Larger prospective studies are necessary to better define the role of WB-MR/DWIBS in this setting of patients.
INTRODUCTION: This study prospectively evaluated whole-body magnetic resonance/diffusion-weighted imaging with body signal suppression (WB-MR/DWIBS) reliability compared to (18)F-FDG PET/CT in the treatment response assessment of classic Hodgkin lymphomas (HL) and aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphomas (aNHL). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-seven consecutive patients were prospectively enrolled at the time of diagnosis. Eighteen (11 HL and seven aNHL) were considered for the analysis. They received chemo/radiotherapy as induction and completed post-treatment evaluation performing both (18)F-FDG PET/CT and WB-MR/DWIBS. The revised response criteria for malignant lymphomas were used to assess the response to treatment. We evaluated the agreement between the two methods by Cohen's K test. Post-therapy WB-MR/DWIBS sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy were then calculated, considering the 12 months of follow-up period as the gold standard. RESULTS: By using an evaluation on a lesion-by-lesion basis, WB-MR/DWIBS and (18)F-FDG PET/CT showed an overall good agreement (K = 0.796, 95% IC = 0.651-0.941), especially in the evaluation of the nodal basins in aNHL (K = 0.937, 95% IC = 0.814-1). In reference to the revised response criteria for malignant lymphomas, the two methods showed a good agreement (K = 0.824, 95% IC = 0.493-1). Post-therapy sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy of WB-MR/DWIBS were 43, 91, 75, 71 and 72%, respectively. CONCLUSION: WB-MR/DWIBS seems to be an appropriate method for the post-treatment assessment of patients affected by HL and aNHL. The small discrepancies between the two methods found within HL could be due to the biological and metabolic behavior of this group of diseases. Larger prospective studies are necessary to better define the role of WB-MR/DWIBS in this setting of patients.
Authors: B D Cheson; S J Horning; B Coiffier; M A Shipp; R I Fisher; J M Connors; T A Lister; J Vose; A Grillo-López; A Hagenbeek; F Cabanillas; D Klippensten; W Hiddemann; R Castellino; N L Harris; J O Armitage; W Carter; R Hoppe; G P Canellos Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1999-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Henriëtte M E Quarles van Ufford; Thomas C Kwee; Frederik J Beek; Maarten S van Leeuwen; Taro Takahara; Rob Fijnheer; Rutger A J Nievelstein; John M H de Klerk Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Bruce D Cheson; Beate Pfistner; Malik E Juweid; Randy D Gascoyne; Lena Specht; Sandra J Horning; Bertrand Coiffier; Richard I Fisher; Anton Hagenbeek; Emanuele Zucca; Steven T Rosen; Sigrid Stroobants; T Andrew Lister; Richard T Hoppe; Martin Dreyling; Kensei Tobinai; Julie M Vose; Joseph M Connors; Massimo Federico; Volker Diehl Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-01-22 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: S S Saboo; K M Krajewski; K N O'Regan; A Giardino; J R Brown; N Ramaiya; J P Jagannathan Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2011-11-17 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Gerald Antoch; Florian M Vogt; Lutz S Freudenberg; Fridun Nazaradeh; Susanne C Goehde; Jörg Barkhausen; Gerlinde Dahmen; Andreas Bockisch; Jörg F Debatin; Stefan G Ruehm Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-12-24 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Arash Latifoltojar; Shonit Punwani; Andre Lopes; Paul D Humphries; Maria Klusmann; Leon Jonathan Menezes; Stephen Daw; Ananth Shankar; Deena Neriman; Heather Fitzke; Laura Clifton-Hadley; Paul Smith; Stuart A Taylor Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-06-15 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Ricardo Donners; Raphael Shih Zhu Yiin; Dow-Mu Koh; Katja De Paepe; Ian Chau; Sue Chua; Matthew D Blackledge Journal: Quant Imaging Med Surg Date: 2021-08