Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Molecular Imaging and Biology 2/2010

Open Access 01-04-2010 | Research Article

On the Added Value of Baseline FDG-PET in Malignant Lymphoma

Authors: Henriette Quarles van Ufford, Otto Hoekstra, Marie de Haas, Rob Fijnheer, Shulamiet Wittebol, Bianca Tieks, Mark Kramer, John de Klerk

Published in: Molecular Imaging and Biology | Issue 2/2010

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

The added value of baseline positron emission tomography (PET) scans in therapy evaluation in malignant lymphoma is unclear. In guidelines, baseline PET is recommended but not mandatory except in lymphoma types with variable fluoro-d-glucose uptake. The aim of the present study was to test the hypothesis that adding baseline PET information decreases false positive readings with posttreatment PET and improves observer agreement.

Methods

Forty-four patients (mean age 56 years, standard deviation 14) with malignant lymphoma were included. Two nuclear medicine physicians retrospectively and independently evaluated the posttreatment PET, 3 weeks later followed by paired reading of baseline and posttreatment PET. For each PET, 22 regions were classified as positive, negative, or equivocal, resulting in an overall PET score of positive, unclear, or negative. In case of discrepancies, consensus was reached.

Results

Addition of baseline to posttreatment PET evaluation affected the classification of metabolic response in 34% of malignant lymphoma patients treated with first-line chemotherapy. In one out of seven patients, addition of the baseline PET lead to opposite conclusions (95% confidence interval 4–14). False positivity was reduced by adding the baseline scan information, but the effect on false negativity was similar. In addition, the amount of unclear classifications halved after paired reading. Observer agreement did not improve upon adding the baseline PET data.

Conclusion

Without any other clinical information, pretreatment PET facilitates changes the interpretation of a posttreatment PET in a third of the patients, resulting in both upgrading and downgrading of the posttreatment situation of a malignant lymphoma patient. If these results are confirmed for PET–computed tomography systems, they favor the addition of baseline PET to the current work-up of patients with malignant lymphoma.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Hoskin PJ (2003) PET in lymphoma: what are the oncologist’s needs? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 30(Suppl 1):S37–S41PubMed Hoskin PJ (2003) PET in lymphoma: what are the oncologist’s needs? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 30(Suppl 1):S37–S41PubMed
2.
go back to reference Carbone PP, Kaplan HS, Musshoff K et al (1971) Report of the committee on Hodgkin’s disease staging classification. Cancer Res 31:1860–1861PubMed Carbone PP, Kaplan HS, Musshoff K et al (1971) Report of the committee on Hodgkin’s disease staging classification. Cancer Res 31:1860–1861PubMed
4.
go back to reference Hoh CK, Glaspy J, Rosen P et al (1997) Whole-body FDG-PET imaging for staging of Hodgkin’s disease and lymphoma. J Nucl Med 38:343–348PubMed Hoh CK, Glaspy J, Rosen P et al (1997) Whole-body FDG-PET imaging for staging of Hodgkin’s disease and lymphoma. J Nucl Med 38:343–348PubMed
5.
go back to reference Buchmann I, Reinhardt M, Elsner K et al (2001) 2-(fluorine-18)fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography in the detection and staging of malignant lymphoma. A bicenter trial. Cancer 91:889–899CrossRefPubMed Buchmann I, Reinhardt M, Elsner K et al (2001) 2-(fluorine-18)fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography in the detection and staging of malignant lymphoma. A bicenter trial. Cancer 91:889–899CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Seam P, Juweid ME, Cheson BD (2007) The role of FDG-PET scans in patients with lymphoma. Blood 110:3507–3516CrossRefPubMed Seam P, Juweid ME, Cheson BD (2007) The role of FDG-PET scans in patients with lymphoma. Blood 110:3507–3516CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Juweid ME, Stroobants S, Hoekstra OS et al (2007) Use of positron emission tomography for response assessment of lymphoma: consensus of the imaging subcommittee of International Harmonization Project in Lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 25:571–578CrossRefPubMed Juweid ME, Stroobants S, Hoekstra OS et al (2007) Use of positron emission tomography for response assessment of lymphoma: consensus of the imaging subcommittee of International Harmonization Project in Lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 25:571–578CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Cheson BD, Pfistner B, Juweid ME et al (2007) Revised response criteria for malignant lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 25:579–586CrossRefPubMed Cheson BD, Pfistner B, Juweid ME et al (2007) Revised response criteria for malignant lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 25:579–586CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Manning K, Tepfer B, Goldklang G et al (2007) Clinical practice guidelines for the utilization of positron emission tomography/computed tomography imaging in selected oncologic applications: suggestions from a provider group. Mol Imaging Biol 9:324–332CrossRefPubMed Manning K, Tepfer B, Goldklang G et al (2007) Clinical practice guidelines for the utilization of positron emission tomography/computed tomography imaging in selected oncologic applications: suggestions from a provider group. Mol Imaging Biol 9:324–332CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Lister TA, Crowther D, Sutcliffe SB et al (1989) Report of a committee convened to discuss the evaluation and staging of patients with Hodgkin’s disease: cotswolds meeting. J Clin Oncol 7:1630–1636PubMed Lister TA, Crowther D, Sutcliffe SB et al (1989) Report of a committee convened to discuss the evaluation and staging of patients with Hodgkin’s disease: cotswolds meeting. J Clin Oncol 7:1630–1636PubMed
11.
go back to reference Altman DG (1999) Inter-rater agreement. In: Altman DG (ed) Practical statistics for medical research. Chapman & Hall, London, pp 403–409 Altman DG (1999) Inter-rater agreement. In: Altman DG (ed) Practical statistics for medical research. Chapman & Hall, London, pp 403–409
12.
go back to reference Wu TH, Huang YH, Lee JJ et al (2004) Radiation exposure during transmission measurements: comparison between CT- and germanium-based techniques with a current PET scanner. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 31:38–43CrossRefPubMed Wu TH, Huang YH, Lee JJ et al (2004) Radiation exposure during transmission measurements: comparison between CT- and germanium-based techniques with a current PET scanner. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 31:38–43CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Brix G, Lechel U, Glatting G et al (2005) Radiation exposure of patients undergoing whole-body dual-modality 18F-FDG PET/CT examinations. J Nucl Med 46:608–613PubMed Brix G, Lechel U, Glatting G et al (2005) Radiation exposure of patients undergoing whole-body dual-modality 18F-FDG PET/CT examinations. J Nucl Med 46:608–613PubMed
14.
go back to reference Kinahan PE, Townsend DW, Beyer T et al (1998) Attenuation correction for a combined 3D PET/CT scanner. Med Phys 25:2046–2053CrossRefPubMed Kinahan PE, Townsend DW, Beyer T et al (1998) Attenuation correction for a combined 3D PET/CT scanner. Med Phys 25:2046–2053CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Griscom NT (2002) A suggestion: look at the images first, before you read the history. Radiology 223:9–10CrossRefPubMed Griscom NT (2002) A suggestion: look at the images first, before you read the history. Radiology 223:9–10CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
On the Added Value of Baseline FDG-PET in Malignant Lymphoma
Authors
Henriette Quarles van Ufford
Otto Hoekstra
Marie de Haas
Rob Fijnheer
Shulamiet Wittebol
Bianca Tieks
Mark Kramer
John de Klerk
Publication date
01-04-2010
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Molecular Imaging and Biology / Issue 2/2010
Print ISSN: 1536-1632
Electronic ISSN: 1860-2002
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11307-009-0259-3

Other articles of this Issue 2/2010

Molecular Imaging and Biology 2/2010 Go to the issue