Rodrigo Regacini1, Andrea Puchnick2, Flavio Augusto Vercillo Luisi3, Henrique Manoel Lederman4. 1. Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), Rua Napoleão de Barros, 800, São Paulo, 04024-002, Brazil. regacini@gmail.com. 2. Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Educational and Research Support, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), São Paulo, Brazil. 3. Department of Pediatrics, Division of Oncology, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), São Paulo, Brazil. 4. Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), Rua Napoleão de Barros, 800, São Paulo, 04024-002, Brazil.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although positron emission tomography with 18F-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose (FDG-PET/CT) has been recommended as the method of choice for lymphoma staging, it has limited availability in several countries, therefore, studies comparing whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to conventional staging methods or to FDG-PET/CT are an important tool to establish whole-body MRI as an alternative to these methods. OBJECTIVE: To compare whole-body MRI versus conventional imaging methods for staging of Hodgkin lymphoma in children and adolescents. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 22 patients ages 5 to 21 years. Staging was performed using conventional imaging methods and whole-body MRI. Conventional imaging methods were defined as computed tomography (CT) of the neck, chest, abdomen and pelvis and ultrasonography of the neck and/or abdomen. We calculated the sensitivity of these methods for Hodgkin lymphoma staging and their sensitivity and specificity for detecting sites of nodal and extranodal involvement. RESULTS: The sensitivity of whole-body MRI for Hodgkin lymphoma staging was superior to that of conventional imaging methods (95.5% vs. 86.4%, respectively), but both methods had similar sensitivity and specificity for detecting involvement of nodal sites (99.1% and 100% vs. 97.3% and 100%, respectively) and extranodal sites (90.5% and 98.7% vs. 90.5% and 99.4%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Whole-body MRI has excellent sensitivity for staging of Hodgkin lymphoma in children and adolescents. It can thus be considered an alternative for this purpose, particularly because it does not expose patients to ionizing radiation.
BACKGROUND: Although positron emission tomography with 18F-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose (FDG-PET/CT) has been recommended as the method of choice for lymphoma staging, it has limited availability in several countries, therefore, studies comparing whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to conventional staging methods or to FDG-PET/CT are an important tool to establish whole-body MRI as an alternative to these methods. OBJECTIVE: To compare whole-body MRI versus conventional imaging methods for staging of Hodgkin lymphoma in children and adolescents. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 22 patients ages 5 to 21 years. Staging was performed using conventional imaging methods and whole-body MRI. Conventional imaging methods were defined as computed tomography (CT) of the neck, chest, abdomen and pelvis and ultrasonography of the neck and/or abdomen. We calculated the sensitivity of these methods for Hodgkin lymphoma staging and their sensitivity and specificity for detecting sites of nodal and extranodal involvement. RESULTS: The sensitivity of whole-body MRI for Hodgkin lymphoma staging was superior to that of conventional imaging methods (95.5% vs. 86.4%, respectively), but both methods had similar sensitivity and specificity for detecting involvement of nodal sites (99.1% and 100% vs. 97.3% and 100%, respectively) and extranodal sites (90.5% and 98.7% vs. 90.5% and 99.4%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Whole-body MRI has excellent sensitivity for staging of Hodgkin lymphoma in children and adolescents. It can thus be considered an alternative for this purpose, particularly because it does not expose patients to ionizing radiation.
Authors: Henriëtte M E Quarles van Ufford; Thomas C Kwee; Frederik J Beek; Maarten S van Leeuwen; Taro Takahara; Rob Fijnheer; Rutger A J Nievelstein; John M H de Klerk Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: T A Lister; D Crowther; S B Sutcliffe; E Glatstein; G P Canellos; R C Young; S A Rosenberg; C A Coltman; M Tubiana Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1989-11 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: Ali Rashidi; Lucia Baratto; Ashok Joseph Theruvath; Elton Benjamin Greene; K Elizabeth Hawk; Rong Lu; Michael P Link; Sheri L Spunt; Heike E Daldrup-Link Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2022-01-31 Impact factor: 7.034
Authors: Jürgen F Schäfer; Claudio Granata; Thekla von Kalle; Martin Kyncl; Annemieke S Littooij; Pier Luigi Di Paolo; Irmina Sefic Pasic; Rutger A J Nievelstein Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2020-05-28