Ajay Major1, Andrew Hammes2, Matthew Q Schmidt3, Rustain Morgan4, Diana Abbott2, Manali Kamdar5. 1. Department of Medicine, Internal Medicine Residency Training Program, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO. Electronic address: ajay.major@cuanschutz.edu. 2. Department of Biostatistics and Informatics, Colorado School of Public Health, Aurora, CO. 3. Department of Internal Medicine, Saint Joseph Hospital, Denver, CO. 4. Department of Radiology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO. 5. Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Follicular lymphoma (FL) grading, low-grade 1-2 (LG) versus grade 3A (3A), informs management. However, accurate grading is challenging owing to disease heterogeneity and inter-reader variability. The [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) parameter maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) has utility in differentiating LG from 3A FL, but the utility of novel parameters total lesion glycolysis (TLG) and total metabolic tumor volume (TMTV) is unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of diagnostic pre-treatment PET-CTs of patients aged > 18 years with FL grades 1-3A from 2009-2017 was performed. PET-CT parameters SUVmax, TLG, and TMTV values were generated using manual (MW) and semi-automated workflows (SW). Poisson regression and receiver operating characteristic curves were used to compare PET-CT parameters between LG and 3A. RESULTS: A total of 49 patients with FL were identified: 38 LG and 11 3A. PET-CT parameters were significantly higher in 3A as compared with LG in both workflows. The cutoff values, sensitivities, and specificities were as follows: SUVmax: 10.4, 64%, and 74% in MW and 11.9, 73%, and 76% in SW; TLG: 543, 82%, and 74% in MW and 371, 73%, and 74% in SW; and TMTV: 141, 73%, and 76% in MW and 93, 64%, and 76% in SW. SUVmax had identical cutoff, sensitivity, and specificity across all 3 SWs, whereas TLG and TMTV had considerable variance across all 3 SWs. CONCLUSIONS: TLG and TMTV are comparable to SUVmax in differentiating LG versus 3A FL. Cutoffs, sensitivities, and specificities varied in MW versus SW. Novel PET-CT parameters serve as reproducible adjuncts but not replacements for biopsy in differentiating grades of FL.
BACKGROUND: Follicular lymphoma (FL) grading, low-grade 1-2 (LG) versus grade 3A (3A), informs management. However, accurate grading is challenging owing to disease heterogeneity and inter-reader variability. The [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) parameter maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) has utility in differentiating LG from 3A FL, but the utility of novel parameters total lesion glycolysis (TLG) and total metabolic tumor volume (TMTV) is unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of diagnostic pre-treatment PET-CTs of patients aged > 18 years with FL grades 1-3A from 2009-2017 was performed. PET-CT parameters SUVmax, TLG, and TMTV values were generated using manual (MW) and semi-automated workflows (SW). Poisson regression and receiver operating characteristic curves were used to compare PET-CT parameters between LG and 3A. RESULTS: A total of 49 patients with FL were identified: 38 LG and 11 3A. PET-CT parameters were significantly higher in 3A as compared with LG in both workflows. The cutoff values, sensitivities, and specificities were as follows: SUVmax: 10.4, 64%, and 74% in MW and 11.9, 73%, and 76% in SW; TLG: 543, 82%, and 74% in MW and 371, 73%, and 74% in SW; and TMTV: 141, 73%, and 76% in MW and 93, 64%, and 76% in SW. SUVmax had identical cutoff, sensitivity, and specificity across all 3 SWs, whereas TLG and TMTV had considerable variance across all 3 SWs. CONCLUSIONS: TLG and TMTV are comparable to SUVmax in differentiating LG versus 3A FL. Cutoffs, sensitivities, and specificities varied in MW versus SW. Novel PET-CT parameters serve as reproducible adjuncts but not replacements for biopsy in differentiating grades of FL.
Authors: Carmel G Cronin; Ronan Swords; Mylene T Truong; Chitra Viswanathan; Eric Rohren; Francis J Giles; Michael O'Dwyer; John F Bruzzi Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Hugo J A Adams; John M H de Klerk; Rob Fijnheer; Ben G F Heggelman; Stefan V Dubois; Rutger A J Nievelstein; Thomas C Kwee Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2015-05-15 Impact factor: 4.089
Authors: Luc Xerri; Stephan Dirnhofer; Leticia Quintanilla-Martinez; Birgitta Sander; John K C Chan; Elias Campo; Steven H Swerdlow; German Ott Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2015-10-19 Impact factor: 4.064
Authors: Moaath Mustafa Ali; Lisa Rybicki; Laila Nomani; Basel Rouphail; Robert M Dean; Brian T Hill; Deepa Jagadeesh; Brad Pohlman; Eric D Hsi; Mitchell R Smith Journal: Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk Date: 2017-07-13
Authors: Sally F Barrington; N George Mikhaeel; Lale Kostakoglu; Michel Meignan; Martin Hutchings; Stefan P Müeller; Lawrence H Schwartz; Emanuele Zucca; Richard I Fisher; Judith Trotman; Otto S Hoekstra; Rodney J Hicks; Michael J O'Doherty; Roland Hustinx; Alberto Biggi; Bruce D Cheson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-09-20 Impact factor: 44.544