Literature DB >> 27246952

Interim FDG-PET/CT in Hodgkin lymphoma: the prognostic role of the ratio between target lesion and liver SUVmax (rPET).

Salvatore Annunziata1, Annarosa Cuccaro2, Maria Lucia Calcagni3, Stefan Hohaus2, Alessandro Giordano3, Vittoria Rufini3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the prognostic role of the ratio between target lesion and liver SUVmax (rPET) in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) undergoing interim FDG-PET/CT and to compare rPET with the 5-point Deauville Score (5p-DS).
METHODS: Sixty-eight patients with HL undergoing interim FDG-PET/CT after first courses of chemotherapy were evaluated. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) approach was applied to identify the optimal cutpoint of rPET with respect to progression free survival (PFS). The prognostic significance of rPET was compared with 5p-DS (scores 4 and 5 considered as positive). Positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated using the presence of an adverse event as the gold standard.
RESULTS: The ROC analysis for rPET as a predictor of progression showed an optimal rPET cutpoint of 1.14. Both 5p-DS and rPET were strong outcome predictors (p < 0.001). Patients with negative 5p-DS and patients with rPET <1.14 had a similar two-year PFS (86 and 87 %, respectively). Patients with a positive 5p-DS had a 2-year PFS of 27 %, while patients with rPET >1.14 had a 2-year PFS of 15 %. 5p-DS and rPET cutoff of 1.14 showed a PPV of 58 versus 70 %, and a NPV of 85 versus 86 %, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: rPET could be considered an accurate prognostic factor in patients with HL undergoing interim FDG-PET/CT. Larger prospective studies are needed to confirm these data.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Deauville; FDG-PET/CT; Hodgkin; SUVmax; rPET

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27246952     DOI: 10.1007/s12149-016-1092-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Nucl Med        ISSN: 0914-7187            Impact factor:   2.668


  12 in total

1.  FDG PET for therapy monitoring in Hodgkin's and non-Hodgkin's lymphomas: qPET versus rPET.

Authors:  Eric Laffon; Roger Marthan
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2017-05-18       Impact factor: 9.236

2.  Reply to: Laffon and Marthan "FDG PET for therapy monitoring in Hodgkin's and non-Hodgkin's lymphomas: qPET versus rPET".

Authors:  Regine Kluge; Sally Barrington; Lars Kurch; Dirk Hasenclever
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2017-09-22       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 3.  Quantitative imaging biomarkers in nuclear medicine: from SUV to image mining studies. Highlights from annals of nuclear medicine 2018.

Authors:  Martina Sollini; Francesco Bandera; Margarita Kirienko
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2019-11-05       Impact factor: 9.236

4.  Prognostic significance of normalized FDG-PET parameters in patients with multiple myeloma undergoing induction chemotherapy and autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: a retrospective single-center evaluation.

Authors:  Daria Ripani; Carmelo Caldarella; Tommaso Za; Daniele Antonio Pizzuto; Elena Rossi; Valerio De Stefano; Alessandro Giordano
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2018-07-27       Impact factor: 9.236

5.  Interim PET-results for prognosis in adults with Hodgkin lymphoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prognostic factor studies.

Authors:  Angela Aldin; Lisa Umlauff; Lise J Estcourt; Gary Collins; Karel Gm Moons; Andreas Engert; Carsten Kobe; Bastian von Tresckow; Madhuri Haque; Farid Foroutan; Nina Kreuzberger; Marialena Trivella; Nicole Skoetz
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2019-09-16

6.  Interim PET-results for prognosis in adults with Hodgkin lymphoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prognostic factor studies.

Authors:  Angela Aldin; Lisa Umlauff; Lise J Estcourt; Gary Collins; Karel Gm Moons; Andreas Engert; Carsten Kobe; Bastian von Tresckow; Madhuri Haque; Farid Foroutan; Nina Kreuzberger; Marialena Trivella; Nicole Skoetz
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2020-01-13

Review 7.  FDG PET for therapy monitoring in Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphomas.

Authors:  Sally F Barrington; Regine Kluge
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2017-04-14       Impact factor: 9.236

8.  Comparison of therapeutic evaluation criteria in FDG-PET/CT in patients with diffuse large-cell B-cell lymphoma: Prognostic impact of tumor/liver ratio.

Authors:  Mathieu N Toledano; Pierre Vera; Hervé Tilly; Fabrice Jardin; Stéphanie Becker
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-02-07       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Role in staging and prognostic value of pretherapeutic F-18 FDG PET/CT in patients with gastric MALT lymphoma without high-grade transformation.

Authors:  Yong-Jin Park; Seung Hyup Hyun; Seung Hwan Moon; Kyung-Han Lee; Byung Hoon Min; Jun Haeng Lee; Won Seog Kim; Seok Jin Kim; Joon Young Choi
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-04-29       Impact factor: 4.379

10.  Analysis of PET parameters as prognosticators of survival and tumor extent in Oropharyngeal Cancer treated with surgery and postoperative radiotherapy.

Authors:  Kyu Hye Choi; Jin Ho Song; Eun Young Park; Ji Hyun Hong; Ie Ryung Yoo; Youn Soo Lee; Dong-Il Sun; Min-Sik Kim; Yeon-Sil Kim
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2021-03-25       Impact factor: 4.430

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.