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

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Annals of Nuclear Medicine
Published in: Annals of Nuclear Medicine 10/2011

01-12-2011 | Invited review article

Impact of FDG-PET/CT in the management of lymphoma

Authors: Shingo Baba, Koichiro Abe, Takuro Isoda, Yasuhiro Maruoka, Masayuki Sasaki, Hiroshi Honda

Published in: Annals of Nuclear Medicine | Issue 10/2011

Login to get access

Abstract

Since the introduction of 67Gallium-citrate 30 years ago, nuclear medicine has played an important role in the evaluation of malignant lymphoma. During that time, several radiotracers were evaluated as potential alternatives for the diagnosis of lymphoma, but the introduction of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET (FDG-PET) marked a major turning point. FDG-PET took over most of the role of gallium, and is now an essential tool in the diagnosis of lymphoma. FDG-PET is increasingly being used for assessment of the tumor staging prior to treatment, for evaluating the response to treatment, and for monitoring the early reactions to therapy to predict the final outcome. FDG-PET has been shown to have more accurate diagnostic capability than conventional CT and MRI for distinguishing the tumor necrosis and residual masses frequently seen after therapy in lymphoma patients without any clinical and biochemical manifestation. Malignant lymphoma is the first disease for which FDG-PET was adopted as a tool for response assessment in the international standard criteria. However, lymphoma does not always display a clear high uptake, and there are some pitfalls in assessing the response to therapy. This review will highlight the most important applications of FDG-PET in lymphoma, focusing on the advantages and pitfalls of this imaging, and past and ongoing efforts to standardize the use of FDG-PET, particularly in response to assessment and therapy monitoring.
Literature
1.
Cheson BD, Pfistner B, Juweid ME, Gascoyne RD, Specht L, Horning SJ, et al. Revised response criteria for malignant lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:579–86.PubMedCrossRef
2.
Surbone A, Longo DL, DeVita VT Jr, Ihde DC, Duffey PL, Jaffe ES, et al. Residual abdominal masses in aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after combination chemotherapy: significance and management. J Clin Oncol. 1988;6:1832–7.PubMed
3.
Canellos GP. Residual mass in lymphoma may not be residual disease. J Clin Oncol. 1988;6:931–3.PubMed
4.
Kaplan WD, Jochelson MS, Herman TS, Nadler LM, Stomper PC, Takvorian T, et al. Gallium-67 imaging: a predictor of residual tumor viability and clinical outcome in patients with diffuse large-cell lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 1990;8:1966–70.PubMed
5.
Front D, Bar-Shalom R, Mor M, Haim N, Epelbaum R, Frenkel A, et al. Aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma: early prediction of outcome with 67Ga scintigraphy. Radiology. 2000;214:253–7.PubMed
6.
Vose JM, Bierman PJ, Anderson JR, Harrison KA, Dalrymple GV, Byar K, et al. Single-photon emission computed tomography gallium imaging versus computed tomography: predictive value in patients undergoing high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem-cell transplantation for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 1996;14:2473–9.PubMed
7.
Janicek M, Kaplan W, Neuberg D, Canellos GP, Shulman LN, Shipp MA. Early restaging gallium scans predict outcome in poor-prognosis patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma treated with high-dose CHOP chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 1997;15:1631–7.PubMed
8.
Cheson BD, Horning SJ, Coiffier B, Shipp MA, Fisher RI, Connors JM, et al. Report of an international workshop to standardize response criteria for non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas. NCI Sponsored International Working Group. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:1244.
9.
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.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Sasaki M, Kuwabara Y, Koga H, Nakagawa M, Chen T, Kaneko K, et al. Clinical impact of whole body FDG-PET on the staging and therapeutic decision making for malignant lymphoma. Ann Nucl Med. 2002;16:337–45.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Yamamoto F, Tsukamoto E, Nakada K, Takei T, Zhao S, Asaka M, et al. 18F-FDG PET is superior to 67Ga SPECT in the staging of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Ann Nucl Med. 2004;18:519–26.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Rademaker J. Radiologic clinics of North America. Imaging of lymphoma. Preface. Radiol Clin North Am. 2008;46:xiii.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Weiler-Sagie M, Bushelev O, Epelbaum R, Dann EJ, Haim N, Avivi I, et al. (18)F-FDG avidity in lymphoma readdressed: a study of 766 patients. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:25–30.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Paes FM, Kalkanis DG, Sideras PA, Serafini AN. FDG PET/CT of extranodal involvement in non-Hodgkin lymphoma and Hodgkin disease. Radiographics. 2010;30:269–91.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Jerusalem G, Beguin Y, Najjar F, Hustinx R, Fassotte MF, Rigo P, et al. Positron emission tomography (PET) with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) for the staging of low-grade non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL). Ann Oncol. 2001;12:825–30.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Elstrom R, Guan L, Baker G, Nakhoda K, Vergilio JA, Zhuang H, et al. Utility of FDG-PET scanning in lymphoma by WHO classification. Blood. 2003;101:3875–6.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Bishu S, Quigley JM, Schmitz J, Bishu SR, Stemm RA, Olsasky SM, et al. F-18-fluoro-deoxy-glucose positron emission tomography in the assessment of peripheral T-cell lymphomas. Leuk Lymphoma. 2007;48:1531–8.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Kako S, Izutsu K, Ota Y, Minatani Y, Sugaya M, Momose T, et al. FDG-PET in T-cell and NK-cell neoplasms. Ann Oncol. 2007;18:1685–90.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Isasi CR, Lu P, Blaufox MD. A metaanalysis of 18F-2-deoxy-2-fluoro-d-glucose positron emission tomography in the staging and restaging of patients with lymphoma. Cancer. 2005;104:1066–74.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Moog F, Bangerter M, Diederichs CG, Guhlmann A, Kotzerke J, Merkle E, 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
21.
Moog F, Bangerter M, Diederichs CG, Guhlmann A, Merkle E, Frickhofen N, et al. Extranodal malignant lymphoma: detection with FDG PET versus CT. Radiology. 1998;206:475–81.PubMed
22.
Buchmann I, Reinhardt M, Elsner K, Bunjes D, Altehoefer C, Finke J, et al. 2-(fluorine-18)fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography in the detection and staging of malignant lymphoma. A bicenter trial. Cancer. 2001;91:889–99.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Bangerter M, Moog F, Buchmann I, Kotzerke J, Griesshammer M, Hafner M, 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.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Bangerter M, Kotzerke J, Griesshammer M, Elsner K, Reske SN, Bergmann L. Positron emission tomography with 18-fluorodeoxyglucose in the staging and follow-up of lymphoma in the chest. Acta Oncol. 1999;38:799–804.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Jerusalem G, Beguin Y, Fassotte MF, Najjar F, Paulus P, Rigo P, et al. Whole-body positron emission tomography using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose compared to standard procedures for staging patients with Hodgkin’s disease. Haematologica. 2001;86:266–73.PubMed
26.
Partridge S, Timothy A, O’Doherty MJ, Hain SF, Rankin S, Mikhaeel G. 2-Fluorine-18-fluoro-2-deoxy-d glucose positron emission tomography in the pretreatment staging of Hodgkin’s disease: influence on patient management in a single institution. Ann Oncol. 2000;11:1273–9.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Weihrauch MR, Re D, Bischoff S, Dietlein M, Scheidhauer K, Krug B, et al. Whole-body positron emission tomography using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose for initial staging of patients with Hodgkin’s disease. Ann Hematol. 2002;81:20–5.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Menzel C, Dobert N, Mitrou P, Mose S, Diehl M, Berner U, et al. Positron emission tomography for the staging of Hodgkin’s lymphoma—increasing the body of evidence in favor of the method. Acta Oncol. 2002;41:430–6.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Naumann R, Beuthien-Baumann B, Reiss A, Schulze J, Hanel A, Bredow J, et al. Substantial impact of FDG PET imaging on the therapy decision in patients with early-stage Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Br J Cancer. 2004;90:620–5.PubMedCrossRef
30.
Hutchings M, Loft A, Hansen M, Pedersen LM, Berthelsen AK, Keiding S, et al. Position emission tomography with or without computed tomography in the primary staging of Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Haematologica. 2006;91:482–9.PubMed
31.
Schaefer NG, Hany TF, Taverna C, Seifert B, Stumpe KD, von Schulthess GK, et al. Non-Hodgkin lymphoma and Hodgkin disease: coregistered FDG PET and CT at staging and restaging—do we need contrast-enhanced CT? Radiology. 2004;232:823–9.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Wirth A, Seymour JF, Hicks RJ, Ware R, Fisher R, Prince M, 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.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Pelosi E, Pregno P, Penna D, Deandreis D, Chiappella A, Limerutti G, et al. Role of whole-body [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) and conventional techniques in the staging of patients with Hodgkin and aggressive non Hodgkin lymphoma. Radiol Med. 2008;113:578–90.PubMedCrossRef
34.
Munker R, Glass J, Griffeth LK, Sattar T, Zamani R, Heldmann M, et al. Contribution of PET imaging to the initial staging and prognosis of patients with Hodgkin’s disease. Ann Oncol. 2004;15:1699–704.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Rigacci L, Vitolo U, Nassi L, Merli F, Gallamini A, Pregno P, et al. Positron emission tomography in the staging of patients with Hodgkin’s lymphoma. A prospective multicentric study by the Intergruppo Italiano Linfomi. Ann Hematol. 2007;86:897–903.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Allen-Auerbach M, Quon A, Weber WA, Obrzut S, Crawford T, Silverman DH, et al. Comparison between 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-d-glucose positron emission tomography and positron emission tomography/computed tomography hardware fusion for staging of patients with lymphoma. Mol Imaging Biol. 2004;6:411–6.PubMedCrossRef
37.
Nogami M, Nakamoto Y, Sakamoto S, Fukushima K, Okada T, Saga T, et al. Diagnostic performance of CT, PET, side-by-side, and fused image interpretations for restaging of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Ann Nucl Med. 2007;21:189–96.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Rodriguez-Vigil B, Gomez-Leon N, Pinilla I, Hernandez-Maraver D, Coya J, Martin-Curto L, et al. PET/CT in lymphoma: prospective study of enhanced full-dose PET/CT versus unenhanced low-dose PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2006;47:1643–8.PubMed
39.
Elstrom RL, Leonard JP, Coleman M, Brown RK. Combined PET and low-dose, noncontrast CT scanning obviates the need for additional diagnostic contrast-enhanced CT scans in patients undergoing staging or restaging for lymphoma. Ann Oncol. 2008;19:1770–3.PubMedCrossRef
40.
Freudenberg LS, Antoch G, Schutt P, Beyer T, Jentzen W, Muller SP, et al. FDG-PET/CT in re-staging of patients with lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004;31:325–9.PubMedCrossRef
41.
Seam P, Juweid ME, Cheson BD. The role of FDG-PET scans in patients with lymphoma. Blood. 2007;110:3507–16.PubMedCrossRef
42.
Pakos EE, Fotopoulos AD, Ioannidis JP. 18F-FDG PET for evaluation of bone marrow infiltration in staging of lymphoma: a meta-analysis. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:958–63.PubMed
43.
Juweid ME. 18F-FDG PET as a routine test for posttherapy assessment of Hodgkin’s disease and aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: where is the evidence? J Nucl Med. 2008;49:9–12.PubMedCrossRef
44.
Lister TA, Crowther D, Sutcliffe SB, Glatstein E, Canellos GP, Young RC, et al. Report of a committee convened to discuss the evaluation and staging of patients with Hodgkin’s disease: Cotswolds meeting. J Clin Oncol. 1989;7:1630–6.PubMed
45.
Juweid ME, Cheson BD. Role of positron emission tomography in lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:4577–80.PubMedCrossRef
46.
Juweid ME, Cheson BD. Positron-emission tomography and assessment of cancer therapy. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:496–507.PubMedCrossRef
47.
Juweid ME. Utility of positron emission tomography (PET) scanning in managing patients with Hodgkin lymphoma. Hematol Am Soc Hematol Educ Program. 2006;259–265:510–1.
48.
de Wit M, Bumann D, Beyer W, Herbst K, Clausen M, Hossfeld DK. Whole-body positron emission tomography (PET) for diagnosis of residual mass in patients with lymphoma. Ann Oncol. 1997;8(Suppl 1):57–60.PubMedCrossRef
49.
Jerusalem G, Beguin Y, Fassotte MF, Najjar F, Paulus P, Rigo P, et al. Whole-body positron emission tomography using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose for posttreatment evaluation in Hodgkin’s disease and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma has higher diagnostic and prognostic value than classical computed tomography scan imaging. Blood. 1999;94:429–33.PubMed
50.
Zinzani PL, Magagnoli M, Chierichetti F, Zompatori M, Garraffa G, Bendandi M, et al. The role of positron emission tomography (PET) in the management of lymphoma patients. Ann Oncol. 1999;10:1181–4.PubMedCrossRef
51.
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.PubMedCrossRef
52.
de Wit M, Bohuslavizki KH, Buchert R, Bumann D, Clausen M, Hossfeld DK. 18FDG-PET following treatment as valid predictor for disease-free survival in Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Ann Oncol. 2001;12:29–37.PubMedCrossRef
53.
Naumann R, Vaic A, Beuthien-Baumann B, Bredow J, Kropp J, Kittner T, et al. Prognostic value of positron emission tomography in the evaluation of post-treatment residual mass in patients with Hodgkin’s disease and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Br J Haematol. 2001;115:793–800.PubMedCrossRef
54.
Weihrauch MR, Re D, Scheidhauer K, Ansen S, Dietlein M, Bischoff S, et al. Thoracic positron emission tomography using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose for the evaluation of residual mediastinal Hodgkin disease. Blood. 2001;98:2930–4.PubMedCrossRef
55.
Dittmann H, Sokler M, Kollmannsberger C, Dohmen BM, Baumann C, Kopp A, et al. Comparison of 18FDG-PET with CT scans in the evaluation of patients with residual and recurrent Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Oncol Rep. 2001;8:1393–9.PubMed
56.
Spaepen K, Stroobants S, Dupont P, Thomas J, Vandenberghe P, Balzarini J, et al. Can positron emission tomography with [(18)F]-fluorodeoxyglucose after first-line treatment distinguish Hodgkin’s disease patients who need additional therapy from others in whom additional therapy would mean avoidable toxicity? Br J Haematol. 2001;115:272–8.PubMedCrossRef
57.
Hueltenschmidt B, Sautter-Bihl ML, Lang O, Maul FD, Fischer J, Mergenthaler HG, et al. Whole body positron emission tomography in the treatment of Hodgkin disease. Cancer. 2001;91:302–10.PubMedCrossRef
58.
Spaepen K, Stroobants S, Dupont P, Van Steenweghen S, Thomas J, Vandenberghe P, et al. Prognostic value of positron emission tomography (PET) with fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose ([18F]FDG) 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
59.
Zijlstra JM, Lindauer-van der Werf G, Hoekstra OS, Hooft L, Riphagen, II, Huijgens PC. 18F-fluoro-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography for post-treatment evaluation of malignant lymphoma: a systematic review. Haematologica. 2006;91:522–9.
60.
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.PubMedCrossRef
61.
Brepoels L, Stroobants S, Verhoef G. PET and PET/CT for response evaluation in lymphoma: current practice and developments. Leuk Lymphoma. 2007;48:270–82.PubMedCrossRef
62.
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.PubMedCrossRef
63.
Picardi M, De Renzo A, Pane F, Nicolai E, Pacelli R, Salvatore M, et al. Randomized comparison of consolidation radiation versus observation in bulky Hodgkin’s lymphoma with post-chemotherapy negative positron emission tomography scans. Leuk Lymphoma. 2007;48:1721–7.PubMedCrossRef
64.
Kobe C, Dietlein M, Franklin J, Markova J, Lohri A, Amthauer H, et al. Positron emission tomography has a high negative predictive value for progression or early relapse for patients with residual disease after first-line chemotherapy in advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma. Blood. 2008;112:3989–94.PubMedCrossRef
65.
Yahalom J. Omitting radiotherapy after attaining FDG PET-negative status following chemotherapy alone for Hodgkin lymphoma: a randomized study caveat. Leuk Lymphoma. 2007;48:1667–9.PubMedCrossRef
66.
Rankin SC. Assessment of response to therapy using conventional imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003;30(Suppl 1):S56–64.PubMedCrossRef
67.
Armitage JO, Weisenburger DD, Hutchins M, Moravec DF, Dowling M, Sorensen S, et al. Chemotherapy for diffuse large-cell lymphoma—rapidly responding patients have more durable remissions. J Clin Oncol. 1986;4:160–4.PubMed
68.
Kostakoglu L, Goldsmith SJ, Leonard JP, Christos P, Furman RR, Atasever T, et al. FDG-PET after 1 cycle of therapy predicts outcome in diffuse large cell lymphoma and classic Hodgkin disease. Cancer. 2006;107:2678–87.PubMedCrossRef
69.
Hutchings M, Mikhaeel NG, Fields PA, Nunan T, Timothy AR. Prognostic value of interim FDG-PET after two or three cycles of chemotherapy in Hodgkin lymphoma. Ann Oncol. 2005;16:1160–8.PubMedCrossRef
70.
Hutchings M, Loft A, Hansen M, Pedersen LM, Buhl T, Jurlander J, et al. FDG-PET after two cycles of chemotherapy predicts treatment failure and progression-free survival in Hodgkin lymphoma. Blood. 2006;107:52–9.PubMedCrossRef
71.
Zinzani PL, Tani M, Fanti S, Alinari L, Musuraca G, Marchi E, et al. Early positron emission tomography (PET) restaging: a predictive final response in Hodgkin’s disease patients. Ann Oncol. 2006;17:1296–300.PubMedCrossRef
72.
Gallamini A, Rigacci L, Merli F, Nassi L, Bosi A, Capodanno I, et al. The predictive value of positron emission tomography scanning performed after two courses of standard therapy on treatment outcome in advanced stage Hodgkin’s disease. Haematologica. 2006;91:475–81.PubMed
73.
Markova J, Kobe C, Skopalova M, Klaskova K, Dedeckova K, Plutschow A, et al. FDG-PET for assessment of early treatment response after four cycles of chemotherapy in patients with advanced-stage Hodgkin’s lymphoma has a high negative predictive value. Ann Oncol. 2009;20:1270–4.PubMedCrossRef
74.
Jerusalem G, Beguin Y, Fassotte MF, Najjar F, Paulus P, Rigo P, et al. Persistent tumor 18F-FDG uptake after a few cycles of polychemotherapy is predictive of treatment failure in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Haematologica. 2000;85:613–8.PubMed
75.
Spaepen K, Stroobants S, Dupont P, Vandenberghe P, Thomas J, de Groot T, et al. Early restaging positron emission tomography with (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose predicts outcome in patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Ann Oncol. 2002;13:1356–63.PubMedCrossRef
76.
Haioun C, Itti E, Rahmouni A, Brice P, Rain JD, Belhadj K, et al. [18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) in aggressive lymphoma: an early prognostic tool for predicting patient outcome. Blood. 2005;106:1376–81.PubMedCrossRef
77.
Mikhaeel NG, Hutchings M, Fields PA, O’Doherty MJ, Timothy AR. FDG-PET after two to three cycles of chemotherapy predicts progression-free and overall survival in high-grade non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Ann Oncol. 2005;16:1514–23.PubMedCrossRef
78.
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. 2008;52:386–92.CrossRef
79.
Hasenclever D, Diehl V. A prognostic score for advanced Hodgkin’s disease. International Prognostic Factors Project on Advanced Hodgkin’s Disease. N Engl J Med. 1998;339:1506–14.PubMedCrossRef
80.
Solal-Celigny P, Roy P, Colombat P, White J, Armitage JO, Arranz-Saez R, et al. Follicular lymphoma international prognostic index. Blood. 2004;104:1258–65.PubMedCrossRef
81.
A predictive model for aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The International Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Prognostic Factors Project. N Engl J Med. 1993;329:987–94.
82.
Kostakoglu L, Coleman M, Leonard JP, Kuji I, Zoe H, Goldsmith SJ. PET predicts prognosis after 1 cycle of chemotherapy in aggressive lymphoma and Hodgkin’s disease. J Nucl Med. 2002;43:1018–27.PubMed
83.
Gallamini A, Hutchings M, Rigacci L, Specht L, Merli F, Hansen M, et al. Early interim 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography is prognostically superior to international prognostic score in advanced-stage Hodgkin’s lymphoma: a report from a joint Italian-Danish study. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:3746–52.PubMedCrossRef
84.
Romer W, Hanauske AR, Ziegler S, Thodtmann R, Weber W, Fuchs C, et al. Positron emission tomography in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: assessment of chemotherapy with fluorodeoxyglucose. Blood. 1998;91:4464–71.PubMed
85.
Mikhaeel NG, Timothy AR, O’Doherty MJ, Hain S, Maisey MN. 18-FDG-PET as a prognostic indicator in the treatment of aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma-comparison with CT. Leuk Lymphoma. 2000;39:543–53.PubMedCrossRef
86.
Lin C, Itti E, Haioun C, Petegnief Y, Luciani A, Dupuis J, et al. Early 18F-FDG PET for prediction of prognosis in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: SUV-based assessment versus visual analysis. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:1626–32.PubMedCrossRef
87.
Weber WA. 18F-FDG PET in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: qualitative or quantitative? J Nucl Med. 2007;48:1580–2.PubMedCrossRef
88.
Itti E, Lin C, Dupuis J, Paone G, Capacchione D, Rahmouni A, et al. Prognostic value of interim 18F-FDG PET in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: SUV-based assessment at 4 cycles of chemotherapy. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:527–33.PubMedCrossRef
89.
Dupuis J, Itti E, Rahmouni A, Hemery F, Gisselbrecht C, Lin C, et al. Response assessment after an inductive CHOP or CHOP-like regimen with or without rituximab in 103 patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: integrating 18fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography to the International Workshop Criteria. Ann Oncol. 2009;20:503–7.PubMedCrossRef
90.
91.
Casasnovas RO, Meignan M, Berriolo-Riedinger A, Bardet S, Julian A, Thieblemont C, et al. SUVmax reduction improves early prognosis value of interim positron emission tomography scans in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Blood. 2011;118:37–43.PubMedCrossRef
92.
Meignan M, Gallamini A, Haioun C. Report on the First International Workshop on Interim-PET-Scan in Lymphoma. Leuk Lymphoma. 2009;50:1257–60.PubMedCrossRef
93.
Aleman BM, van den Belt-Dusebout AW, Klokman WJ, Van’t Veer MB, Bartelink H, van Leeuwen FE. Long-term cause-specific mortality of patients treated for Hodgkin’s disease. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:3431–9.PubMedCrossRef
94.
95.
96.
97.
Diehl V, Franklin J, Pfreundschuh M, Lathan B, Paulus U, Hasenclever D, et al. Standard and increased-dose BEACOPP chemotherapy compared with COPP-ABVD for advanced Hodgkin’s disease. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:2386–95.PubMedCrossRef
98.
Oza AM, Ganesan TS, Leahy M, Gregory W, Lim J, Dadiotis L, et al. Patterns of survival in patients with Hodgkin’s disease: long follow up in a single centre. Ann Oncol. 1993;4:385–92.PubMed
99.
100.
101.
102.
103.
Gallamini A, Viviani S, Bonfante V, et al. Early interim FDG-PET during intensified BEACOPP therapy shows a lower predictive value than during conventional ABVD chemotherapy. Haematologica. 2007;92(Suppl. 5):71.
104.
Avigdor A, Bulvik S, Dann EJ, et al. Combined ESCBEACOPP-ABVD therapy for advanced Hodgkin’s lymphoma patients with high IPS score: an effective regimen and low positive predictive value of early FDG-PET/CT. Haematologica. 2007;92(Suppl. 5):66.
105.
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
Yoo C, Lee DH, Kim JE, Jo J, Yoon DH, Sohn BS, et al. Limited role of interim PET/CT in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma treated with R-CHOP. Ann Hematol. 2010;90:797–802.PubMedCrossRef
111.
Jerusalem G, Beguin Y, Fassotte MF, Belhocine T, Hustinx R, Rigo P, 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.PubMedCrossRef
112.
Zinzani PL, Stefoni V, Tani M, Fanti S, Musuraca G, Castellucci P, et al. Role of [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography scan in the follow-up of lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:1781–7.PubMedCrossRef
113.
Lapela M, Leskinen S, Minn HR, Lindholm P, Klemi PJ, Soderstrom KO, et al. Increased glucose metabolism in untreated non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: a study with positron emission tomography and fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose. Blood. 1995;86:3522–7.PubMed
114.
Schoder H, Noy A, Gonen M, Weng L, Green D, Erdi YE, et al. Intensity of 18fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in positron emission tomography distinguishes between indolent and aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:4643–51.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Impact of FDG-PET/CT in the management of lymphoma
Authors
Shingo Baba
Koichiro Abe
Takuro Isoda
Yasuhiro Maruoka
Masayuki Sasaki
Hiroshi Honda
Publication date
01-12-2011
Publisher
Springer Japan
Published in
Annals of Nuclear Medicine / Issue 10/2011
Print ISSN: 0914-7187
Electronic ISSN: 1864-6433
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-011-0549-0

Other articles of this Issue 10/2011

Annals of Nuclear Medicine 10/2011 Go to the issue

Original article

Additional value of FDG-PET to contrast enhanced-computed tomography (CT) for the diagnosis of mediastinal lymph node metastasis in non-small cell lung cancer: a Japanese multicenter clinical study

Original article

Additional effects of FDG-PET to thin-section CT for the differential diagnosis of lung nodules: a Japanese multicenter clinical study

Original article

Tc-99m-BrIDA hepatobiliary (HIDA) scan has a low sensitivity for detecting biliary complications after orthotopic liver transplantation in patients with hyperbilirubinemia

Report

Utilization of nuclear medicine scintigraphy in Taiwan, 1997–2009

Original article

Myocardial washout rate of technetium-99m-sestamibi in the chronic phase predicts myocardial damage in patients with previous myocardial infarction

Original article

The value of 18F-FDG-PET/CT in the differential diagnosis of solitary pulmonary nodules in areas with a high incidence of tuberculosis