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 1/2005

01-01-2005 | Original Article

18F-FDG PET in children with lymphomas

Authors: Gisele Depas, Caroline De Barsy, Guy Jerusalem, Claire Hoyoux, Marie-Françoise Dresse, Marie-France Fassotte, Nancy Paquet, Jacqueline Foidart, Pierre Rigo, Roland Hustinx

Published in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging | Issue 1/2005

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to retrospectively evaluate the performance of positron emission tomography (PET) with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) in children with lymphomas, at various stages of their disease.

Methods

Twenty-eight children (mean age 12.5 years, 14 girls, 14 boys) with Hodgkin’s disease (HD, n=17) or non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL, n=11) were evaluated. Patients were investigated at initial staging (n=19), early in the course of treatment (n=19), at the end of treatment (n=16) and during long-term follow-up (n=19). A total of 113 whole-body PET studies were performed on dedicated scanners. PET results were compared with the results of conventional methods (CMs) such as physical examination, laboratory studies, chest X-rays, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasonography and bone scan when available.

Results

At initial evaluation (group 1), PET changed the disease stage and treatment in 10.5% of the cases. In early evaluation of the response to treatment (group 2), PET failed to predict two relapses and one incomplete response to treatment. In this group, however, PET did not show any false positive results. There were only 4/75 false positive results for PET among patients studied at the end of treatment (group 3, specificity 94%) or during the systematic follow-up (group 4, specificity 95%), as compared with 27/75 for CMs (specificity 54% and 66%, respectively).

Conclusion

18F-FDG-PET is a useful tool for evaluating children with lymphomas. Large prospective studies are needed to appreciate its real impact on patient management.
Literature
1.
Oberlin O. Hodgkin’s disease. In: Voûte PA, Kalifa C, Barrett A, editors. Cancer in children. Clinical management. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University; 1998. p. 137–53.
2.
Lanzkowski P. Hodgkin’s disease. In: Lanzkowski P, editor. Manual of pediatric hematology and oncology. 3rd ed. San Diego: Academic; 1999. p. 413–43.
3.
Lukes R, Butler J, Hicks E. Natural history of Hodgkin’s disease as related to its pathological picture. Cancer 1966;19:317–44.
4.
Büyükpamukçu M. Non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas. In: Voûte PA, Kalifa C, Barrett A, editors. Cancer in children. Clinical management. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University; 1998. p. 119–36.
5.
Lanzkowski P. Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. In: Lanzkowski P, editor. Manual of pediatric hematology and oncology. 3rd ed. San Diego: Academic; 1999. p. 445–69.
6.
Harris NL, Haffe ES, Stein H, et al. A revised European–American classification of lymphoid neoplasms: a proposal from the International Lymphoma Study Group. Blood 1994;84(5):1361–92.
7.
Thomson AB, Wallace WHB. Treatment of paediatric Hodgkin’s disease: a balance of risks. Eur J Cancer 2002;38:468–77.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Pinkerton CR. Review: the continuing challenge of treatment for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in children. Br J Haematol 1999;107:220–34.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Jadvar H, Connolly LP, Shulkin BL, Treves ST, Fischman AJ. Positron-emission tomography in pediatrics. In: Freeman LM, editor. Nuclear medicine annual 2000. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2000. p. 53–83.
10.
O’Hara S, Donnelly LF, Coleman RE. Pediatric body applications of FDG-PET. Am J Radiol 1999;172:1019–24.
11.
Thomas B, Manalili E, Leonidas JC, Karayalcin G, Lipton J. 18F FDG imaging of lymphoma in children using a hybrid PET system: comparison with 67Ga [abstract]. J Nucl Med 2000;41(Suppl):96P.
12.
Moody R, Shulkin B, Yanik G, Hutchinson R, Castle V. PET FDG imaging in pediatric lymphomas [abstract]. J Nucl Med 2002;42(Suppl):39P.
13.
Montravers F, McNamara D, Landman-Parket J, et al. 18F-FDG in childhood lymphoma: clinical utility and impact on management. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2002;29:1155–65.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Zinzani PL, Magagnoli M, Chierichetti F, et al. Role of positron emission tomography in the management of lymphoma patient. Ann Oncol 1999;10:1181–4.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Jerusalem G, Warland V, Najjar F, et al. Whole-body 18FDG-PET for the evaluation of patients with Hodgkin’s disease and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Nucl Med Commun 1999;20:13–20.PubMed
16.
Kostakoglu L, Goldsmith SJ. Fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the staging and follow-up of lymphoma: is it time to shift gears? Eur J Nucl Med 2000;27:1564–78.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Wirth A, Seymour JF, Hicks RJ, et al. Fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography, gallium-67 scintigraphy and conventional staging for Hodgkin’s disease and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Am J Med 2002;112:262–8.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Carbone PP, Kaplan HS, Musshoff K, Smithers DW, Tubiana M. Report of the Committee on Hodgkin’s Disease Staging Classification. Cancer Res 1971;31:1860–1.PubMed
19.
Murphy SB. Current concepts in cancer: childhood non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. N Engl J Med 1978;299:1446.PubMed
20.
Kostakoglu L, Leonard JP, Kuji I, Coleman M, Vallabhajosula S, Goldsmith SJ. Comparison of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and gallium-67 scintigraphy in evaluation of lymphoma. Cancer 2002;94:879–88.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Guay C, Lépine M, Verreault J, Bénard F. Prognostic value of PET using 18F-FDG in Hodgkin’s disease for posttreatment evaluation. J Nucl Med 2003;44:1225–31.PubMed
22.
Jerusalem G, Beguin Y, Fassotte MF, et al. Whole-body positron emission tomography using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose for post-treatment evaluation in Hodgkin’s disease and non Hodgkin’s lymphoma has higher diagnostic and prognostic value than clinical computed tomography scan imaging. Blood 1999;94:429–33.PubMed
23.
Jerusalem G, Beguin Y, Fassotte MF, et al. Early detection of relapse by whole-body positron-emission tomography in the follow-up of patients with Hodgkin’s disease. Ann Oncol 2003;14:123–30.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Moog F, Bangerter M, Diederichs CG, et al. Lymphoma: role of whole-body 2-deoxy-2-[F-18]fluoro-d-glucose (FDG) PET in nodal staging. Radiology 1997;203:795–800.PubMed
25.
Moog F, Bangerter M, Diederichs CG, et al. Extranodal malignant lymphoma detection with FDG PET versus CT. Radiology 1998;206:475–81.PubMed
26.
Bangerter M, Moog F, Buchmann I, et al. Whole-body 2-[18F]-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) for accurate staging of Hodgkin’s disease. Ann Oncol 1998;9:1117–22.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Spaepen C, Stroobants C, Dupont P, et al. Prognostic value of positron emission tomography with fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose after first line chemotherapy in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: is 18F-FDG-PET a valid alternative to conventional diagnostic methods? J Clin Oncol 2001;19:414–9.PubMed
28.
Oberlin O. Present and future strategies of treatment in childhood Hodgkin’s lymphomas. Ann Oncol 1996;7(Suppl 4):S73–8.
29.
Patte C. Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Paediatric update. Eur J Cancer 1998;34(3):359–69.
30.
Pintelon H, Jonckheere MH, Piepsz A. Paediatric nuclear medicine procedures: routine sedation or management of anxiety? Nucl Med Commun 1994;15:664–6.PubMed
31.
Gordon I. Issues surrounding preparation, information and handling the child and parent in nuclear medicine. J Nucl Med 1998;39:490–4.PubMed
32.
Ruotsalainem U, Suhonen-Polis H, Eronen E, et al. Estimated radiation dose to the new-born in FDG-PET studies. J Nucl Med 1996;37:387–93.PubMed
Metadata
Title
18F-FDG PET in children with lymphomas
Authors
Gisele Depas
Caroline De Barsy
Guy Jerusalem
Claire Hoyoux
Marie-Françoise Dresse
Marie-France Fassotte
Nancy Paquet
Jacqueline Foidart
Pierre Rigo
Roland Hustinx
Publication date
01-01-2005
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging / Issue 1/2005
Print ISSN: 1619-7070
Electronic ISSN: 1619-7089
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-004-1604-z

Other articles of this Issue 1/2005

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 1/2005 Go to the issue

Original Article

Direct comparison of 18F-FDG and 11C-methionine PET in suspected recurrence of glioma: sensitivity, inter-observer variability and prognostic value

Original Article

Time course of functional recovery after coronary artery bypass grafting surgery according to the preoperative reversibility of perfusion impairment on myocardial SPECT

Original Article

Prevalence of symptomatic and silent stress-induced perfusion defects in diabetic patients with suspected coronary artery disease referred for myocardial perfusion scintigraphy

Molecular Imaging

Molecular imaging of atherosclerotic plaques with technetium-99m-labelled antisense oligonucleotides

News & Views

January 2005

Original Article

The impact of PET scanning on management of paediatric oncology patients