Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
Published in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 10/2016

01-09-2016 | Original Article

Diagnostic accuracy of FDG PET/CT for clinical evaluation at the end of treatment of HL and NHL: a comparison of the Deauville Criteria (DC) and the International Harmonization Project Criteria (IHPC)

Authors: Federico Fallanca, Pierpaolo Alongi, Elena Incerti, Luigi Gianolli, Maria Picchio, Irfan Kayani, Jamshed Bomanji

Published in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging | Issue 10/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the accuracy and prognostic value of FDG PET/CT for response assessment after treatment in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) when using the Deauville Criteria (DC) and the International Harmonization Project Criteria (IHPC).

Methods

This retrospective study included 101 patients (35 HL, 66 NHL) who underwent early restaging FDG PET/CT after treatment. Scans were evaluated using the IHPC and DC. Two thresholds of positivity for the DC were used: a score of at least 3 (DC3, i.e. scores 3 – 5) and a score of at least 4 (DC4, i.e. a score of 4 or 5). Accuracy was assessed using conventional diagnostic procedures, multidisciplinary team case notes, further PET/CT scans and/or follow-up. Progression-free survival and overall survival were computed using the Kaplan-Meier method. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to identify predictors of outcome.

Results

Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy of FDG PET/CT for early restaging were, respectively, 92 %, 87 %, 74 %, 92 % and 86 % using DC4, 97 %, 76 %, 64 %, 98 % and 84 % using DC3, and 97 %, 67 %, 57 %, 98 % and 76 % using the IHPC. FDG PET/CT positivity was associated with a worse cumulative survival rate over a 2-year period when using DC4 in comparison with the IHPC (20 % vs. 49 %; p < 0.05) and DC3 (47 %; p < 0.05). Cox regression analysis showed different risks of progression in patients positive on FDG PET/CT using the IHPC, DC3 and DC4 (hazard ratios 1.57, 0.7 and 3.2, respectively).

Conclusion

FDG PET/CT using DC4 showed higher diagnostic accuracy for HL and NHL than FDG PET/CT using either the IHPC or DC3, indicating its value in predicting clinical outcome after treatment.
Literature
1.
De Angelis R, Sant M, Coleman MP, Francisci S, Baili P, Pierannunzio D, et al. Cancer survival in Europe 1999–2007 by country and age: results of EUROCARE-5 – a population-based study. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:23–34.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Sant M, Minicozzi P, Mounier M, Anderson LA, Brenner H, Holleczek B, et al. Survival for haematological malignancies in Europe between 1997 and 2008 by region and age: results of EUROCARE-5, a population-based study. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:931–42.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Johnson SA, Kumar A, Matasar MJ, Schöder H, Rademaker J. Imaging for staging and response assessment in lymphoma. Radiology. 2015;276:323–38.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Cheson BD, Fisher RI, Barrington SF, Cavalli F, Schwartz LH, Zucca E, et al. Recommendations for initial evaluation, staging, and response assessment of Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma: the Lugano classification. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:3059–68.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Cheson BD. Staging and response assessment in lymphomas: the new Lugano classification. Chin Clin Oncol. 2015;4:5.PubMed
6.
Pyo J, Won Kim K, Jacene HA, Sakellis CG, Brown JR, Van den Abbeele AD. End-therapy positron emission tomography for treatment response assessment in follicular lymphoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19:6566–77.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Bodet-Milin C, Eugène T, Gastinne T, Frampas E, Le Gouill S, Kraeber-Bodéré F. FDG-PET in follicular lymphoma management. J Oncol. 2012;2012:370272.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
Luminari S, Biasoli I, Versari A, Rattotti S, Bottelli C, Rusconi C, et al. The prognostic role of post-induction FDG-PET in patients with follicular lymphoma: a subset analysis from the FOLL05 trial of the Fondazione Italiana Linfomi (FIL). Ann Oncol. 2014;25:442–7.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Hutchings M, Barrington SF. PET/CT for therapy response assessment in lymphoma. J Nucl Med. 2009;50 Suppl 1:21S–30.
10.
Juweid ME, Stroobants S, Hoekstra OS, Mottaghy FM, Dietlein M, Guermazi A, et al. Use of positron emission tomography for response assessment of lymphoma: consensus of the Imaging Subcommittee of International Harmonization Project in Lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:571–8.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Brepoels L, Stroobants S, De Wever W, Spaepen K, Vandenberghe P, Thomas J, et al. Aggressive and indolent non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: response assessment by integrated international workshop criteria. Leuk Lymphoma. 2007;48:1522–30.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Brepoels L, Stroobants S, De Wever W, Spaepen K, Vandenberghe P, Thomas J, et al. Hodgkin lymphoma: response assessment by revised international workshop criteria. Leuk Lymphoma. 2007;48:1539–47.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Cheson BD. New response criteria for lymphomas in clinical trials. Ann Oncol. 2008;19:35–8.CrossRef
14.
Gallamini A, Kostakoglu L. Interim FDG-PET in Hodgkin lymphoma: a compass for a safe navigation in clinical trials? Blood. 2012;120:4913–20.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Gallamini A, Patti C, Viviani S, Rossi A, Fiore F, Di Raimondo F, et al. Early chemotherapy intensification with BEACOPP in advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma patients with a interim-PET positive after two ABVD courses. Br J Haematol. 2011;152:551–60.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Meignan M, Gallamini A, Haioun C. Report on the First International Workshop on Interim-PET-Scan in Lymphoma. Leuk Lymphoma. 2009;50:1257–60.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Barrington SF, Qian W, Somer EJ, Franceschetto A, Bagni B, Brun E, et al. Concordance between four European centres of PET reporting criteria designed for use in multicentre trials in Hodgkin lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:1824–33.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Biggi A, Gallamini A, Chauvie S, Hutchings M, Kostakoglu L, Gregianin M, et al. International validation study for interim PET in ABVD-treated, advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma: interpretation criteria and concordance rate among reviewers. J Nucl Med. 2013;54:683–90.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Juweid ME, Wiseman GA, Vose JM, Ritchie JM, Menda Y, Wooldridge JE, et al. Response assessment of aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma by integrated International Workshop Criteria and fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:4652–61.CrossRefPubMed
20.
21.
22.
23.
Cerci JJ, Pracchia LF, Linardi CCG, Pitella FA, Delbeke D, Izaki M, et al. 18F-FDG PET after 2 cycles of ABVD predicts event-free survival in early and advanced Hodgkin lymphoma. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:1337–43.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Engert A, Haverkamp H, Kobe C, Markova J, Renner C, Ho A, et al. Reduced-intensity chemotherapy and PET-guided radiotherapy in patients with advanced stage Hodgkin’s lymphoma (HD15 trial): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2012;379:1791–9.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Micallef IN, Maurer MJ, Wiseman GA, Nikcevich DA, Kurtin PJ, Cannon MW, et al. Epratuzumab with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone chemotherapy in patients with previously untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Blood. 2011;118:4053–61.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
Mikhaeel NG, Timothy AR, Hain SF, O’Doherty MJ. 18-FDG-PET for the assessment of residual masses on CT following treatment of lymphomas. Ann Oncol. 2000;11 Suppl 1:147–50.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Cashen AF, Dehdashti F, Luo J, Homb A, Siegel BA, Bartlett NL. 18F-FDG PET/CT for early response assessment in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: poor predictive value of International Harmonization Project interpretation. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:386–92.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
Pregno P, Chiappella A, Bellò M, Botto B, Ferrero S, Franceschetti S, et al. Interim 18-FDG-PET/CT failed to predict the outcome in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients treated at the diagnosis with rituximab-CHOP. Blood. 2012;119:2066–73.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Zijlstra JM, Lindauer-van der Werf G, Hoekstra OS, Riphagen HL, Huijgens PC. 18F-fluoro-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography for post-treatment evaluation of malignant lymphoma: a systematic review. Haematologica. 2006;91:522–9.PubMed
30.
Strigari L, Attili A, Duggento A, Chiaravalloti A, Schillaci O, Guerrisi MG. Quantitative analysis of basal and interim PET/CT images for predicting tumor recurrence in patients with Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Nucl Med Commun. 2016;37:16–22PubMed
31.
Horning SJ, Juweid ME, Schöder H, Wiseman G, McMillan A, Swinnen LJ, et al. Interim positron emission tomography scans in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: an independent expert nuclear medicine evaluation of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group E3404 study. Blood. 2010;115:775–7. quiz 918.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
32.
Barrington SF, Mikhaeel NG, Kostakoglu L, Meignan M, Hutchings M, Müeller SP, et al. Role of imaging in the staging and response assessment of lymphoma: consensus of the International Conference on Malignant Lymphomas Imaging Working Group. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:3048–58.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Chiaravalloti A, Danieli R, Abbatiello P, Di Pietro B, Travascio L, Cantonetti M, et al. Factors affecting intrapatient liver and mediastinal blood pool 18F-FDG standardized uptake value changes during ABVD chemotherapy in Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:1123–32.PubMed
34.
Barnes JA, LaCasce AS, Zukotynski K, Israel D, Feng Y, Neuberg D, et al. End-of-treatment but not interim PET scan predicts outcome in nonbulky limited-stage Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Ann Oncol. 2011;22:910–5.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Trotman J, Fournier M, Lamy T, Seymour JF, Sonet A, Janikova A, et al. Positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) after induction therapy is highly predictive of patient outcome in follicular lymphoma: analysis of PET-CT in a subset of PRIMA trial participants. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:3194–200.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Diagnostic accuracy of FDG PET/CT for clinical evaluation at the end of treatment of HL and NHL: a comparison of the Deauville Criteria (DC) and the International Harmonization Project Criteria (IHPC)
Authors
Federico Fallanca
Pierpaolo Alongi
Elena Incerti
Luigi Gianolli
Maria Picchio
Irfan Kayani
Jamshed Bomanji
Publication date
01-09-2016
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging / Issue 10/2016
Print ISSN: 1619-7070
Electronic ISSN: 1619-7089
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-016-3390-9

Other articles of this Issue 10/2016

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 10/2016 Go to the issue

Original Article

[68Ga]DOTATATE PET/MRI and [18F]FDG PET/CT are complementary and superior to diffusion-weighted MR imaging for radioactive-iodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer

Image of the Month

18F-FDG hepatic superscan caused by a non-germinal center subtype of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma

Image of the Month

18F-Labelled PSMA-1007 shows similarity in structure, biodistribution and tumour uptake to the theragnostic compound PSMA-617

Original Article

Ruptured human Achilles tendon has elevated metabolic activity up to 1 year after repair

Obituary

In memoriam: Prof. Dr. Edwaldo Eduardo Camargo (1938–2016)

Review Article

Contribution of 18F-FDG PET in the diagnostic assessment of fever of unknown origin (FUO): a stratification-based meta-analysis