Stéphanie Becker1,2, Thomas Vermeulin3, Anne-Ségolène Cottereau4, Nicolas Boissel5, Pierre Vera6,7, Stéphane Lepretre8. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Centre Henri-Becquerel, Rue d'Amiens, 76038, Rouen Cedex, France. stephanie.becker@chb.unicancer.fr. 2. QuantIF-LITIS (EA [Equipe d'Accueil] 4108), Faculty of Medicine, University of Rouen, Rouen, France. stephanie.becker@chb.unicancer.fr. 3. Department of Biostatistics, Rouen University Hospital, Rouen, France. 4. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Hôpital Tenon, AP-HP, Paris, France. 5. Department of Hematology, Hôpital Saint-Louis, AP-HP, Université Paris Diderot, EA3518, Paris, France. 6. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Centre Henri-Becquerel, Rue d'Amiens, 76038, Rouen Cedex, France. 7. QuantIF-LITIS (EA [Equipe d'Accueil] 4108), Faculty of Medicine, University of Rouen, Rouen, France. 8. Inserm U1245 and Department of Hematology, Centre Henri Becquerel and Normandie Univ UNIROUEN, Rouen, France.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We examined whether FDG PET can be used to predict outcome in patients with lymphoblastic lymphoma (LL). METHODS: This was a retrospective post hoc analysis of data from the GRAAL-LYSA LL03 trial, in which the treatment of LL using an adapted paediatric-like acute lymphoblastic leukaemia protocol was evaluated. PET data acquired at baseline and after induction were analysed. Maximum standardized uptake values (SUVmax), total metabolic tumour volume and total lesion glycolysis were measured at baseline. The relative changes in SUVmax from baseline (ΔSUVmax) and the Deauville score were determined after induction. RESULTS: The population analysed comprised 36 patients with T-type LL. SUVmax using a cut-off value of ≤8.76 vs. >8.76 was predictive of 3-year event-free survival (31.6% vs. 80.4%; p = 0.013) and overall survival (35.0% vs. 83.7%; p = 0.028). ΔSUVmax using a cut-off value of ≤80% vs. >80% tended also to be predictive of 3-year event-free survival (40.0% vs. 76.0%; p = 0.054) and overall survival (49.2% vs. 85.6%; p = 0.085). Total metabolic tumour volume, baseline total lesion glycolysis and response according to the Deauville score were not predictive of outcome. CONCLUSIONS: A low initial SUVmax was predictive of worse outcomes in our series of patients with T-type LL. Although relatively few patients were included, the study also suggested that ΔSUVmax may be useful for predicting therapeutic efficacy.
PURPOSE: We examined whether FDG PET can be used to predict outcome in patients with lymphoblastic lymphoma (LL). METHODS: This was a retrospective post hoc analysis of data from the GRAAL-LYSA LL03 trial, in which the treatment of LL using an adapted paediatric-like acute lymphoblastic leukaemia protocol was evaluated. PET data acquired at baseline and after induction were analysed. Maximum standardized uptake values (SUVmax), total metabolic tumour volume and total lesion glycolysis were measured at baseline. The relative changes in SUVmax from baseline (ΔSUVmax) and the Deauville score were determined after induction. RESULTS: The population analysed comprised 36 patients with T-type LL. SUVmax using a cut-off value of ≤8.76 vs. >8.76 was predictive of 3-year event-free survival (31.6% vs. 80.4%; p = 0.013) and overall survival (35.0% vs. 83.7%; p = 0.028). ΔSUVmax using a cut-off value of ≤80% vs. >80% tended also to be predictive of 3-year event-free survival (40.0% vs. 76.0%; p = 0.054) and overall survival (49.2% vs. 85.6%; p = 0.085). Total metabolic tumour volume, baseline total lesion glycolysis and response according to the Deauville score were not predictive of outcome. CONCLUSIONS: A low initial SUVmax was predictive of worse outcomes in our series of patients with T-type LL. Although relatively few patients were included, the study also suggested that ΔSUVmax may be useful for predicting therapeutic efficacy.
Authors: Andrew P Weng; Adolfo A Ferrando; Woojoong Lee; John P Morris; Lewis B Silverman; Cheryll Sanchez-Irizarry; Stephen C Blacklow; A Thomas Look; Jon C Aster Journal: Science Date: 2004-10-08 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: A S Cottereau; S Becker; F Broussais; O Casasnovas; S Kanoun; M Roques; N Charrier; S Bertrand; R Delarue; C Bonnet; R Hustinx; P Gaulard; L de Leval; P Vera; E Itti; N Mounier; C Haioun; H Tilly; M Meignan Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2016-01-19 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: N George Mikhaeel; Daniel Smith; Joel T Dunn; Michael Phillips; Henrik Møller; Paul A Fields; David Wrench; Sally F Barrington Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2016-02-23 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Marius E Mayerhoefer; Anton Staudenherz; Barbara Kiesewetter; Michael Weber; Ingrid Simonitsch-Klupp; Peter Gibbs; Werner Dolak; Julius Lukas; Markus Raderer Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Marius E Mayerhoefer; Christopher C Riedl; Anita Kumar; Peter Gibbs; Michael Weber; Ilan Tal; Juliana Schilksy; Heiko Schöder Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-07-08 Impact factor: 9.236