Felipe Montes de Jesus1, V Vergote2, W Noordzij1, D Dierickx2, R A J O Dierckx1, A Diepstra3, T Tousseyn4, O Gheysens5, T C Kwee6, C M Deroose7, A W J M Glaudemans1. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Hematology, University Hospitals Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium. 3. Department of Pathology and Medical Biology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Pathology University Hospitals Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium. 5. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, 1200 Brussels, Belgium. 6. Department of Radiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands. 7. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospitals Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium.
Abstract
Background: Post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD) is a complication of organ transplantation classified according to the WHO as nondestructive, polymorphic, monomorphic, and classic Hodgkin Lymphoma subtypes. In this retrospective study, we investigated the potential of semi-quantitative 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose ([18F]FDG) PET/computed tomography (CT)-based parameters to differentiate between the PTLD morphological subtypes. Methods: 96 patients with histopathologically confirmed PTLD and baseline [18F]FDG PET/CT between 2009 and 2019 were included. Extracted semi-quantitative measurements included: Maximum, peak, and mean standardized uptake value (SUVmax, SUVpeak, and SUVmean). Results: Median SUVs were highest for monomorphic PTLD followed by polymorphic and nondestructive subtypes. The median SUVpeak at the biopsy site was significantly higher in monomorphic PTLD (17.8, interquartile range (IQR):16) than in polymorphic subtypes (9.8, IQR:13.4) and nondestructive (4.1, IQR:6.1) (p = 0.04 and p ≤ 0.01, respectively). An SUVpeak ≥ 24.8 was always indicative of a monomorphic PTLD in our dataset. Nevertheless, there was a considerable overlap in SUV across the different morphologies. Conclusion: The median SUVpeak at the biopsy site was significantly higher in monomorphic PTLD than polymorphic and nondestructive subtypes. However, due to significant SUV overlap across the different subtypes, these values may only serve as an indication of PTLD morphology, and SUV-based parameters cannot replace histopathological classification.
Background: Post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD) is a complication of organ transplantation classified according to the WHO as nondestructive, polymorphic, monomorphic, and classic Hodgkin Lymphoma subtypes. In this retrospective study, we investigated the potential of semi-quantitative 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose ([18F]FDG) PET/computed tomography (CT)-based parameters to differentiate between the PTLD morphological subtypes. Methods: 96 patients with histopathologically confirmed PTLD and baseline [18F]FDG PET/CT between 2009 and 2019 were included. Extracted semi-quantitative measurements included: Maximum, peak, and mean standardized uptake value (SUVmax, SUVpeak, and SUVmean). Results: Median SUVs were highest for monomorphic PTLD followed by polymorphic and nondestructive subtypes. The median SUVpeak at the biopsy site was significantly higher in monomorphic PTLD (17.8, interquartile range (IQR):16) than in polymorphic subtypes (9.8, IQR:13.4) and nondestructive (4.1, IQR:6.1) (p = 0.04 and p ≤ 0.01, respectively). An SUVpeak ≥ 24.8 was always indicative of a monomorphic PTLD in our dataset. Nevertheless, there was a considerable overlap in SUV across the different morphologies. Conclusion: The median SUVpeak at the biopsy site was significantly higher in monomorphic PTLD than polymorphic and nondestructive subtypes. However, due to significant SUV overlap across the different subtypes, these values may only serve as an indication of PTLD morphology, and SUV-based parameters cannot replace histopathological classification.
Authors: Filipe M Montes de Jesus; Andor W J M Glaudemans; Wim J Tissing; Rudi A J O Dierckx; Stefano Rosati; Arjan Diepstra; Walter Noordzij; Thomas C Kwee Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2020-01-31 Impact factor: 10.057
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: Thomas Menter; Darius Juskevicius; Mary Alikian; Juerg Steiger; Stephan Dirnhofer; Alexandar Tzankov; Kikkeri N Naresh Journal: Br J Haematol Date: 2017-04-17 Impact factor: 6.998
Authors: Nicolas Aide; Charline Lasnon; Patrick Veit-Haibach; Terez Sera; Bernhard Sattler; Ronald Boellaard Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-06-16 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Vikas R Dharnidharka; Marianna B Ruzinova; Chun-Cheng Chen; Priyanka Parameswaran; Harry O'Gorman; Charles W Goss; Hongjie Gu; Gregory A Storch; Kristine Wylie Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2019-01-29 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: F M Montes de Jesus; T C Kwee; X U Kahle; M Nijland; T van Meerten; G Huls; R A J O Dierckx; S Rosati; A Diepstra; W van der Bij; E A M Verschuuren; A W J M Glaudemans; W Noordzij Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-08-24 Impact factor: 9.236