PURPOSE: 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET/CT is useful for staging and evaluating treatment response in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). A five-point scale model using the mediastinal blood pool (MBP) and liver as references is a recommended method for interpreting treatment response. We evaluated the variability in standardized uptake values (SUVs) of the MBP, liver, and myocardium during chemotherapy in patients with DLBCL. METHODS: We analyzed 60 patients with DLBCL who received rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone (R-CHOP) treatment and underwent baseline, interim, and final FDG PET/CT scans. The FDG uptakes of lymphoma lesions, MBP, liver, and myocardium were assessed, and changes in the MBP and liver SUV and possible associated factors were evaluated. RESULTS: The SUV of the liver did not change significantly during the chemotherapy. However, the SUVmean of MBP showed a significant change though the difference was small (p = 0.019). SUVmean of MBP and liver at baseline and interim scans was significantly lower in patients with advanced Ann Arbor stage on diagnosis. The SUVmean of the MBP and liver was negatively correlated with the volumetric index of lymphoma lesions in baseline scans (r = -0.547, p < 0.001; r = -0.502, p < 0.001). Positive myocardial FDG uptake was more frequently observed in interim and final scans than in the baseline scan, but there was no significant association between the MBP and liver uptake and myocardial uptake. CONCLUSIONS: The SUV of the liver was not significantly changed during R-CHOP chemotherapy in patients with DLBCL, whereas the MBP SUV of the interim scan decreased slightly. However, the SUV of the reference organs may be affected by tumor burden, and this should be considered when assessing follow-up scans. Although myocardial FDG uptake was more frequently observed after R-CHOP chemotherapy, it did not affect the SUV of the MBP and liver.
PURPOSE:18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET/CT is useful for staging and evaluating treatment response in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). A five-point scale model using the mediastinal blood pool (MBP) and liver as references is a recommended method for interpreting treatment response. We evaluated the variability in standardized uptake values (SUVs) of the MBP, liver, and myocardium during chemotherapy in patients with DLBCL. METHODS: We analyzed 60 patients with DLBCL who received rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone (R-CHOP) treatment and underwent baseline, interim, and final FDG PET/CT scans. The FDG uptakes of lymphoma lesions, MBP, liver, and myocardium were assessed, and changes in the MBP and liver SUV and possible associated factors were evaluated. RESULTS: The SUV of the liver did not change significantly during the chemotherapy. However, the SUVmean of MBP showed a significant change though the difference was small (p = 0.019). SUVmean of MBP and liver at baseline and interim scans was significantly lower in patients with advanced Ann Arbor stage on diagnosis. The SUVmean of the MBP and liver was negatively correlated with the volumetric index of lymphoma lesions in baseline scans (r = -0.547, p < 0.001; r = -0.502, p < 0.001). Positive myocardial FDG uptake was more frequently observed in interim and final scans than in the baseline scan, but there was no significant association between the MBP and liver uptake and myocardial uptake. CONCLUSIONS: The SUV of the liver was not significantly changed during R-CHOP chemotherapy in patients with DLBCL, whereas the MBP SUV of the interim scan decreased slightly. However, the SUV of the reference organs may be affected by tumor burden, and this should be considered when assessing follow-up scans. Although myocardial FDG uptake was more frequently observed after R-CHOP chemotherapy, it did not affect the SUV of the MBP and liver.
Entities:
Keywords:
Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma; FDG; Liver; Mediastinum; Myocardium; PET
Authors: S Limat; E Daguindau; J-Y Cahn; V Nerich; A Brion; S Perrin; M-C Woronoff-Lemsi; E Deconinck Journal: J Clin Pharm Ther Date: 2014-01-03 Impact factor: 2.512
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: Ora Israel; Michal Weiler-Sagie; Shmuel Rispler; Rachel Bar-Shalom; Alex Frenkel; Zohar Keidar; Avi Bar-Shalev; H William Strauss Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: David Groheux; Marc Delord; Domenico Rubello; Patrick M Colletti; Minh-Loan Nguyen; Elif Hindié Journal: Clin Nucl Med Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 7.794
Authors: L S Freudenberg; G Antoch; P Schütt; T Beyer; W Jentzen; S P Müller; R Görges; M R Nowrousian; A Bockisch; J F Debatin Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2003-11-26 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Gerben J C Zwezerijnen; Jakoba J Eertink; Maria C Ferrández; Sanne E Wiegers; Coreline N Burggraaff; Pieternella J Lugtenburg; Martijn W Heymans; Henrica C W de Vet; Josée M Zijlstra; Ronald Boellaard Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2022-09-27 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Afnan A Malaih; Joel T Dunn; Lotte Nygård; David G Kovacs; Flemming L Andersen; Sally F Barrington; Barbara M Fischer Journal: Nucl Med Commun Date: 2022-05-01 Impact factor: 1.698