Zhitao Ying1, Lan Mi2, Xuejuan Wang3, Yuewei Zhang3, Zhi Yang3, Yuqin Song1, Xiaopei Wang1, Wen Zheng1, Ningjing Lin1, Meifeng Tu1, Yan Xie1, Lingyan Ping1, Chen Zhang1, Weiping Liu1, Lijuan Deng1, Jun Zhu1. 1. Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Department of Lymphoma, Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Beijing 100142, China. 2. Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Beijing 100142, China. 3. Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Department of Nuclear Medicine, Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Beijing 100142, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: High-dose chemotherapy (HDC) followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is the standard of care in the upfront or relapsed/refractory setting in some patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). However, a proportion of patients do not respond to ASCT. 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) has been widely used for staging, response evaluation, and prognosis prediction. Here, we investigated the prognostic role of PET/CT in NHL patients before and after ASCT. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted at Peking University Cancer Hospital. All NHL patients who underwent ASCT between March 2010 and July 2016 were identified. Patients who had PET/CT scan before and after ASCT were included. Deauville criteria (5-point scale) were used to interpret PET scans. Univariate and multivariate survival analyses were performed using Cox regression. The predictive value of PET scanning was estimated by comparing the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. RESULTS: In total, 79 patients were enrolled in this study. In univariate analysis, pre- and post-ASCT PET result was identified as prognostic factors for 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Patients with negative pre-ASCT PET result demonstrated significantly better PFS (84.2% vs. 54.2%) and OS (89.2% vs. 63.6%) than patients with positive pre-ASCT PET result. PFS (91.6% vs. 25.3%) and OS (96.5% vs. 36.8%) were also significantly different between patients with negative and positive post-ASCT PET result. Multivariate analysis also showed a significant association between survival and post-ASCT PET result. ROC analysis revealed that the predictive value of post-ASCT PET result was superior to that of pre-ASCT PET result alone. Combined pre- and post-ASCT PET result is better for predicting outcomes in patients with NHL receiving transplantation. Deauville criteria score >3 was identified as the best cutoff value for post-ASCT PET. CONCLUSIONS: Post-ASCT PET result was more important than pre-ASCT PET result in predicting outcomes for NHL patients who underwent ASCT. The prognostic significance can be improved when combining pre-ASCT PET result with post-ASCT PET result. Deauville criteria can be used for interpreting PET scans in this scenario.
OBJECTIVE: High-dose chemotherapy (HDC) followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is the standard of care in the upfront or relapsed/refractory setting in some patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). However, a proportion of patients do not respond to ASCT. 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) has been widely used for staging, response evaluation, and prognosis prediction. Here, we investigated the prognostic role of PET/CT in NHL patients before and after ASCT. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted at Peking University Cancer Hospital. All NHL patients who underwent ASCT between March 2010 and July 2016 were identified. Patients who had PET/CT scan before and after ASCT were included. Deauville criteria (5-point scale) were used to interpret PET scans. Univariate and multivariate survival analyses were performed using Cox regression. The predictive value of PET scanning was estimated by comparing the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. RESULTS: In total, 79 patients were enrolled in this study. In univariate analysis, pre- and post-ASCT PET result was identified as prognostic factors for 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Patients with negative pre-ASCT PET result demonstrated significantly better PFS (84.2% vs. 54.2%) and OS (89.2% vs. 63.6%) than patients with positive pre-ASCT PET result. PFS (91.6% vs. 25.3%) and OS (96.5% vs. 36.8%) were also significantly different between patients with negative and positive post-ASCT PET result. Multivariate analysis also showed a significant association between survival and post-ASCT PET result. ROC analysis revealed that the predictive value of post-ASCT PET result was superior to that of pre-ASCT PET result alone. Combined pre- and post-ASCT PET result is better for predicting outcomes in patients with NHL receiving transplantation. Deauville criteria score >3 was identified as the best cutoff value for post-ASCT PET. CONCLUSIONS: Post-ASCT PET result was more important than pre-ASCT PET result in predicting outcomes for NHL patients who underwent ASCT. The prognostic significance can be improved when combining pre-ASCT PET result with post-ASCT PET result. Deauville criteria can be used for interpreting PET scans in this scenario.
Authors: Craig S Sauter; Matthew J Matasar; Jessica Meikle; Heiko Schoder; Gary A Ulaner; Jocelyn C Migliacci; Patrick Hilden; Sean M Devlin; Andrew D Zelenetz; Craig H Moskowitz Journal: Blood Date: 2015-03-10 Impact factor: 22.113
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: Christian Gisselbrecht; Bertram Glass; Nicolas Mounier; Devinder Singh Gill; David C Linch; Marek Trneny; Andre Bosly; Nicolas Ketterer; Ofer Shpilberg; Hans Hagberg; David Ma; Josette Brière; Craig H Moskowitz; Norbert Schmitz Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-07-26 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Andy I Chen; Alex McMillan; Robert S Negrin; Sandra J Horning; Ginna G Laport Journal: Biol Blood Marrow Transplant Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Francesco d'Amore; Thomas Relander; Grete F Lauritzsen; Esa Jantunen; Hans Hagberg; Harald Anderson; Harald Holte; Anders Österborg; Mats Merup; Peter Brown; Outi Kuittinen; Martin Erlanson; Bjørn Østenstad; Unn-Merete Fagerli; Ole V Gadeberg; Christer Sundström; Jan Delabie; Elisabeth Ralfkiaer; Martine Vornanen; Helle E Toldbod Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-07-30 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Nicola Di Renzo; Francesco Gaudio; Carmelo Carlo Stella; Sara Oppi; Matteo Pelosini; Roberto Sorasio; Caterina Stelitano; Luigi Rigacci Journal: Acta Biomed Date: 2020-05-25