Ur Metser1, Ravi Mohan1, Vaughan Beckley1, Hadas Moshonov2, David Hodgson3, Grainne Murphy1. 1. Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network, Mount Sinai Hospital and Women's College Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON Canada. 2. Office of Research and Development, Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network, Mount Sinai Hospital and Women's College Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON Canada. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Princess Margaret Hospital, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Based on the International Harmonization Project (IHP) criteria, positron emission tomography (PET) response assessment of residual nodal masses in patients with lymphoma after completion of therapy is performed visually using mediastinal blood pool as the reference. The primary objective of this study was to define the optimal reference for PET response assessment. Secondary aim was to assess if morphological criteria on computed tomography (CT) may improve performance of PET. METHODS: This institutional review board approved retrospective study included 137 patients, with Hodgkin's (n = 43) or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (n = 94) assessed for residual masses (n = 180) after completion of therapy with pathology and clinical and imaging surveillance data (mean, 19 months) as the standard of reference. Two readers independently assessed response by IHP and Deauville criteria. The addition of morphological parameters on CT was assessed in relation to therapy response. RESULTS: Based on the standard of reference, 36 patients (26.3 %) had residual lymphoma. For IHP and Deauville criteria, sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were 97.2 %, 97.2 % (p = 1); 79.2 %, 92.1 % (p < 0.001); and 83.9 %, 93.4 % (p = 0.001), respectively. Of the morphological parameters assessed, only change in size over course of therapy was significant (p < 0.003) and improved specificity for IHP-based interpretation to 90.4 % (p = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: Using liver as the visual reference to determine PET positivity for lymphoma patients being assessed for residual masses at the end of therapy improves specificity, yet maintains the high sensitivity of PET in identifying residual disease. The addition of change in size after therapy improves specificity of PET when using IHP-based but not Deauville-based interpretation.
PURPOSE: Based on the International Harmonization Project (IHP) criteria, positron emission tomography (PET) response assessment of residual nodal masses in patients with lymphoma after completion of therapy is performed visually using mediastinal blood pool as the reference. The primary objective of this study was to define the optimal reference for PET response assessment. Secondary aim was to assess if morphological criteria on computed tomography (CT) may improve performance of PET. METHODS: This institutional review board approved retrospective study included 137 patients, with Hodgkin's (n = 43) or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (n = 94) assessed for residual masses (n = 180) after completion of therapy with pathology and clinical and imaging surveillance data (mean, 19 months) as the standard of reference. Two readers independently assessed response by IHP and Deauville criteria. The addition of morphological parameters on CT was assessed in relation to therapy response. RESULTS: Based on the standard of reference, 36 patients (26.3 %) had residual lymphoma. For IHP and Deauville criteria, sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were 97.2 %, 97.2 % (p = 1); 79.2 %, 92.1 % (p < 0.001); and 83.9 %, 93.4 % (p = 0.001), respectively. Of the morphological parameters assessed, only change in size over course of therapy was significant (p < 0.003) and improved specificity for IHP-based interpretation to 90.4 % (p = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: Using liver as the visual reference to determine PET positivity for lymphomapatients being assessed for residual masses at the end of therapy improves specificity, yet maintains the high sensitivity of PET in identifying residual disease. The addition of change in size after therapy improves specificity of PET when using IHP-based but not Deauville-based interpretation.
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: Karoline Spaepen; Sigrid Stroobants; Patrick Dupont; Peter Vandenberghe; Johan Maertens; Guy Bormans; José Thomas; Jan Balzarini; Christine De Wolf-Peeters; Luc Mortelmans; Gregor Verhoef Journal: Blood Date: 2003-02-27 Impact factor: 22.113
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: 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: Malik E Juweid; Gregory A Wiseman; Julie M Vose; Justine M Ritchie; Yusuf Menda; James E Wooldridge; Felix M Mottaghy; Eric M Rohren; Norbert M Blumstein; Alan Stolpen; Brian K Link; Sven N Reske; Michael M Graham; Bruce D Cheson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-04-18 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Bruce D Cheson; Richard I Fisher; Sally F Barrington; Franco Cavalli; Lawrence H Schwartz; Emanuele Zucca; T Andrew Lister Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-09-20 Impact factor: 44.544
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: Julian Kirchner; Cornelius Deuschl; Johannes Grueneisen; Ken Herrmann; Michael Forsting; Philipp Heusch; Gerald Antoch; Lale Umutlu Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-02-04 Impact factor: 9.236
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
Authors: Yeye Zhou; Zixuan Zhao; Yiwei Wu; Jihui Li; Bin Zhang; Shibiao Sang; Shengming Deng Journal: Cancer Manag Res Date: 2019-07-23 Impact factor: 3.602