Federico Fallanca1, Pierpaolo Alongi1,2, Elena Incerti1, Luigi Gianolli1, Maria Picchio1, Irfan Kayani3, Jamshed Bomanji4,5. 1. Unit of Nuclear Medicine, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy. 2. Nuclear Medicine Unit, Department of Radiological Sciences, San Raffaele G. Giglio Institute, Cefalù, Italy. 3. University College London Hospital, London, UK. 4. University College London Hospital, London, UK. jamshed.bomanji@nhs.net. 5. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University College Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, 235 Euston Rd, London, NW1 2BU, UK. jamshed.bomanji@nhs.net.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy and prognostic value of FDG PET/CT for response assessment after treatment in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) when using the Deauville Criteria (DC) and the International Harmonization Project Criteria (IHPC). METHODS: This retrospective study included 101 patients (35 HL, 66 NHL) who underwent early restaging FDG PET/CT after treatment. Scans were evaluated using the IHPC and DC. Two thresholds of positivity for the DC were used: a score of at least 3 (DC3, i.e. scores 3 - 5) and a score of at least 4 (DC4, i.e. a score of 4 or 5). Accuracy was assessed using conventional diagnostic procedures, multidisciplinary team case notes, further PET/CT scans and/or follow-up. Progression-free survival and overall survival were computed using the Kaplan-Meier method. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to identify predictors of outcome. RESULTS: Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy of FDG PET/CT for early restaging were, respectively, 92 %, 87 %, 74 %, 92 % and 86 % using DC4, 97 %, 76 %, 64 %, 98 % and 84 % using DC3, and 97 %, 67 %, 57 %, 98 % and 76 % using the IHPC. FDG PET/CT positivity was associated with a worse cumulative survival rate over a 2-year period when using DC4 in comparison with the IHPC (20 % vs. 49 %; p < 0.05) and DC3 (47 %; p < 0.05). Cox regression analysis showed different risks of progression in patients positive on FDG PET/CT using the IHPC, DC3 and DC4 (hazard ratios 1.57, 0.7 and 3.2, respectively). CONCLUSION: FDG PET/CT using DC4 showed higher diagnostic accuracy for HL and NHL than FDG PET/CT using either the IHPC or DC3, indicating its value in predicting clinical outcome after treatment.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy and prognostic value of FDG PET/CT for response assessment after treatment in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) when using the Deauville Criteria (DC) and the International Harmonization Project Criteria (IHPC). METHODS: This retrospective study included 101 patients (35 HL, 66 NHL) who underwent early restaging FDG PET/CT after treatment. Scans were evaluated using the IHPC and DC. Two thresholds of positivity for the DC were used: a score of at least 3 (DC3, i.e. scores 3 - 5) and a score of at least 4 (DC4, i.e. a score of 4 or 5). Accuracy was assessed using conventional diagnostic procedures, multidisciplinary team case notes, further PET/CT scans and/or follow-up. Progression-free survival and overall survival were computed using the Kaplan-Meier method. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to identify predictors of outcome. RESULTS: Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy of FDG PET/CT for early restaging were, respectively, 92 %, 87 %, 74 %, 92 % and 86 % using DC4, 97 %, 76 %, 64 %, 98 % and 84 % using DC3, and 97 %, 67 %, 57 %, 98 % and 76 % using the IHPC. FDG PET/CT positivity was associated with a worse cumulative survival rate over a 2-year period when using DC4 in comparison with the IHPC (20 % vs. 49 %; p < 0.05) and DC3 (47 %; p < 0.05). Cox regression analysis showed different risks of progression in patients positive on FDG PET/CT using the IHPC, DC3 and DC4 (hazard ratios 1.57, 0.7 and 3.2, respectively). CONCLUSION: FDG PET/CT using DC4 showed higher diagnostic accuracy for HL and NHL than FDG PET/CT using either the IHPC or DC3, indicating its value in predicting clinical outcome after treatment.
Entities:
Keywords:
18F-FDG PET/CT; Deauville Criteria; End of therapy; Hodgkin lymphoma; International Harmonization Project Criteria; Non-Hodgkin lymphoma; Restaging
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: Agostino Chiaravalloti; Roberta Danieli; Paolo Abbatiello; Barbara Di Pietro; Laura Travascio; Maria Cantonetti; Manlio Guazzaroni; Antonio Orlacchio; Giovanni Simonetti; Orazio Schillaci Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-02-22 Impact factor: 9.236
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: Roberta De Angelis; Milena Sant; Michel P Coleman; Silvia Francisci; Paolo Baili; Daniela Pierannunzio; Annalisa Trama; Otto Visser; Hermann Brenner; Eva Ardanaz; Magdalena Bielska-Lasota; Gerda Engholm; Alice Nennecke; Sabine Siesling; Franco Berrino; Riccardo Capocaccia Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2013-12-05 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: J A Barnes; A S LaCasce; K Zukotynski; D Israel; Y Feng; D Neuberg; C E Toomey; E P Hochberg; G P Canellos; J S Abramson Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2010-10-15 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Milena Sant; Pamela Minicozzi; Morgane Mounier; Lesley A Anderson; Hermann Brenner; Bernd Holleczek; Rafael Marcos-Gragera; Marc Maynadié; Alain Monnereau; Gemma Osca-Gelis; Otto Visser; Roberta De Angelis Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2014-07-13 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Paul Flechsig; Christina Walker; Clemens Kratochwil; Laila König; Andrei Iagura; Jan Moltz; Tim Holland-Letz; Hans-Ulrich Kauczor; Uwe Haberkorn; Frederik L Giesel Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2018-08 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Nieves Gómez León; Roberto C Delgado-Bolton; Lourdes Del Campo Del Val; Beatriz Cabezas; Reyes Arranz; Marta García; Jimena Cannata; Saturnino González Ortega; Mª Ángeles Pérez Sáez; Begoña López-Botet; Beatriz Rodríguez-Vigil; Marta Mateo; Patrick M Colletti; Domenico Rubello; José L Carreras Journal: Clin Nucl Med Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 7.794