Rationale: (18F)fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (18F-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) for staging Hodgkin lymphoma may allow for accurate and reliable assessment of the metabolic tumour volume (MTV) as baseline risk factor. Our aim was to analyse the prognostic impact of MTV measurements, obtained by different means in advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma patients treated within the German Hodgkin Study Group HD18 trial. Methods: Within the German Hodgkin Study Group trial HD18, 310 patients underwent 18F-FDG PET/CT scanning for staging which was available to the central review panel for quantitative analysis. We calculated the MTV by four different thresholding methods and performed receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis to evaluate the potential for prediction of early response determined by PET after two cycles (PET-2) dose-escalated bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone (eBEACOPP). Logistic regression was used to evaluate its prognostic value concerning progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Results: All different MTV calculations used predicted PET-2 response to a moderate and comparable degree (area under the curve = 0.62-0.63, P = 0.01-0.06). With none of the measuring methods did the ROC curves point to any unique cut-off values, but indicated a wide range of possible cut-offs. However, none of the MTV measurements was prognostic for PFS (Hazard ratio 1.2-1.5, P = 0.15-0.52) or OS (Hazard ratio 1.0-1.5, P = 0.95 - 0.27). Conclusion: Baseline MTV as determined by different means, is a predictive factor for early response to eBEACOPP after two cycles. However, value as a prognostic factor after highly effective PET-2 adapted treatment strategy could not be observed.
Rationale: (18F)fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (18F-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) for staging Hodgkin lymphoma may allow for accurate and reliable assessment of the metabolic tumour volume (MTV) as baseline risk factor. Our aim was to analyse the prognostic impact of MTV measurements, obtained by different means in advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma patients treated within the German Hodgkin Study Group HD18 trial. Methods: Within the German Hodgkin Study Group trial HD18, 310 patients underwent 18F-FDG PET/CT scanning for staging which was available to the central review panel for quantitative analysis. We calculated the MTV by four different thresholding methods and performed receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis to evaluate the potential for prediction of early response determined by PET after two cycles (PET-2) dose-escalated bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone (eBEACOPP). Logistic regression was used to evaluate its prognostic value concerning progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Results: All different MTV calculations used predicted PET-2 response to a moderate and comparable degree (area under the curve = 0.62-0.63, P = 0.01-0.06). With none of the measuring methods did the ROC curves point to any unique cut-off values, but indicated a wide range of possible cut-offs. However, none of the MTV measurements was prognostic for PFS (Hazard ratio 1.2-1.5, P = 0.15-0.52) or OS (Hazard ratio 1.0-1.5, P = 0.95 - 0.27). Conclusion: Baseline MTV as determined by different means, is a predictive factor for early response to eBEACOPP after two cycles. However, value as a prognostic factor after highly effective PET-2 adapted treatment strategy could not be observed.
Authors: Paolo G Gobbi; Francesco Valentino; Emilio Bassi; Chiara Coriani; Francesco Merli; Valeria Bonfante; Alfonso Marchianò; Andrea Gallamini; Silvia Bolis; Caterina Stelitano; Alessandro Levis; Massimo Federico; Francesco Angrilli; Giuseppe Di Giulio; Gino R Corazza Journal: Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk Date: 2011-06-12
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: Marc P E André; Théodore Girinsky; Massimo Federico; Oumédaly Reman; Catherine Fortpied; Manuel Gotti; Olivier Casasnovas; Pauline Brice; Richard van der Maazen; Alessandro Re; Véronique Edeline; Christophe Fermé; Gustaaf van Imhoff; Francesco Merli; Réda Bouabdallah; Catherine Sebban; Lena Specht; Aspasia Stamatoullas; Richard Delarue; Valeria Fiaccadori; Monica Bellei; Tiana Raveloarivahy; Annibale Versari; Martin Hutchings; Michel Meignan; John Raemaekers Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-03-14 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Georg Kuhnert; Ronald Boellaard; Sergej Sterzer; Deniz Kahraman; Matthias Scheffler; Jürgen Wolf; Markus Dietlein; Alexander Drzezga; Carsten Kobe Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-08-18 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: David Morland; Elizabeth Katherine Anna Triumbari; Elena Maiolo; Annarosa Cuccaro; Giorgio Treglia; Stefan Hohaus; Salvatore Annunziata Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2022-06-22
Authors: Lutz van Heek; Colin Stuka; Helen Kaul; Horst Müller; Jasmin Mettler; Felicitas Hitz; Christian Baues; Michael Fuchs; Peter Borchmann; Andreas Engert; Markus Dietlein; Conrad-Amadeus Voltin; Carsten Kobe Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2022-06-18 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Matthew G Mei; Hun Ju Lee; Joycelynne M Palmer; Robert Chen; Ni-Chun Tsai; Lu Chen; Kathryn McBride; D Lynne Smith; Ivana Melgar; Joo Y Song; Kimberley-Jane Bonjoc; Saro Armenian; Mary Nwangwu; Peter P Lee; Jasmine Zain; Liana Nikolaenko; Leslie Popplewell; Auayporn Nademanee; Ammar Chaudhry; Steven Rosen; Larry Kwak; Stephen J Forman; Alex F Herrera Journal: Blood Date: 2022-06-23 Impact factor: 25.476
Authors: X U Kahle; F M Montes de Jesus; T C Kwee; T van Meerten; A Diepstra; S Rosati; A W J M Glaudemans; W Noordzij; W J Plattel; M Nijland Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-07-30 Impact factor: 4.379
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
Authors: Maria I Morales-Lozano; Oliver Viering; Samuel Samnick; Paula Rodriguez-Otero; Andreas K Buck; Maria Marcos-Jubilar; Leo Rasche; Elena Prieto; K Martin Kortüm; Jesus San-Miguel; Maria J Garcia-Velloso; Constantin Lapa Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2020-04-23 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Amy J Weisman; Minnie W Kieler; Scott B Perlman; Martin Hutchings; Robert Jeraj; Lale Kostakoglu; Tyler J Bradshaw Journal: Radiol Artif Intell Date: 2020-09-02