Top

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging

Published in:

01-12-2006 | Original article

Value of PET/CT versus PET and CT performed as separate investigations in patients with Hodgkin’s disease and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma

Authors: Christian la Fougère, Walter Hundt, Nicole Bröckel, Thomas Pfluger, Alexander Haug, Bernhard Scher, Marcus Hacker, Klaus Hahn, Maximilan Reiser, Reinhold Tiling

Published in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging | Issue 12/2006

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to assess the clinical benefit of combined [¹⁸F]FDG PET/CT in patients with malignant lymphoma as compared to separately performed PET and CT.

Methods

Overall, 100 patients with Hodgkin’s disease (HD) or non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) were included in this study. Co-registered PET/CT with [¹⁸F]FDG and contrast medium was performed in 50 consecutive patients with NHL (n=38) or HD (n=12) for initial staging (IS) (n=12) or re-treatment staging (RS) (n=38). Another 50 patients with NHL (n=32) or HD (n=18) underwent separate PET and CT investigations within a time frame of 10 days for IS (n=22) or RS (n=28). Lymphoma involvement was separately evaluated for seven different regions in each patient. Each patient had clinical follow-up evaluation for >6 months. PET and CT data were analysed separately as well as side-by-side or in fused mode.

Results

In the PET/CT group, region-based evaluation for lymphoma involvement suggested a sensitivity/specificity of 85%/91% for CT, 98%/99% for PET and 98%/99% for PET/CT. In the PET and CT group, region-based evaluation showed a sensitivity/specificity of 87%/80% for CT, 98%/99% for PET and 98%/100% for PET and CT read side by side.

Conclusion

PET was superior to CT alone and was improved further by side-by-side reading of both examinations. However, no significant difference was observed between PET/CT and separate PET and CT imaging in patients with lymphoma.

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(21):1506–1514PubMedCrossRef

Hicks RJ, Mac Manus MP, Seymour JF. Initial staging of lymphoma with positron emission tomography and computed tomography. Semin Nucl Med 2005;35(3):165–175PubMedCrossRef

Guppy AE, Tebbutt NC, Norman A, Cunningham D. The role of surveillance CT scans in patients with diffuse large B-cell non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Leuk Lymphoma 2003;44(1):123–125PubMedCrossRef

Canellos GP. Residual mass in lymphoma may not be residual disease. J Clin Oncol 1988;6(6):931–933PubMed

Schiepers C, Filmont JE, Czernin J. PET for staging of Hodgkin’s disease and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003;30 Suppl 1:S82–S88PubMedCrossRef

Gambhir SS, Czernin J, Schwimmer J, Silverman DH, Coleman RE, Phelps ME. A tabulated summary of the FDG PET literature. J Nucl Med 2001;42(5 Suppl):1S–93SPubMed

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(5):337–345PubMedCrossRef

Stumpe KD, Urbinelli M, Steinert HC, Glanzmann C, Buck A, von Schulthess GK. Whole-body positron emission tomography using fluorodeoxyglucose for staging of lymphoma: effectiveness and comparison with computed tomography. Eur J Nucl Med 1998;25(7):721–728PubMedCrossRef

Steinert HC. [PET/CT in lymphoma patients.]. Radiologe 2004;44(11):1060–1067PubMedCrossRef

10.

Spaepen K, Stroobants S, Verhoef G, Mortelmans L. Positron emission tomography with [¹⁸F]FDG for therapy response monitoring in lymphoma patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003;30 Suppl 1:S97–S105PubMedCrossRef

11.

Weihrauch MR, Re D, Bischoff S, Dietlein M, Scheidhauer K, Krug B, et al. Whole-body positron emission tomography using¹⁸F-fluorodeoxyglucose for initial staging of patients with Hodgkin’s disease. Ann Hematol 2002;81(1):20–25PubMedCrossRef

12.

Weihrauch MR, Dietlein M, Schicha H, Diehl V, Tesch H. Prognostic significance of¹⁸F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in lymphoma. Leuk Lymphoma 2003;44(1):15–22PubMedCrossRef

13.

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(4):262–268PubMedCrossRef

14.

Kumar R, Maillard I, Schuster SJ, Alavi A. Utility of fluorodeoxyglucose-PET imaging in the management of patients with Hodgkin’s and non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas. Radiol Clin North Am 2004;42(6):1083–1100PubMedCrossRef

15.

Glazer GM, Gross BH, Quint LE, Francis IR, Bookstein FL, Orringer MB. Normal mediastinal lymph nodes: number and size according to American Thoracic Society mapping. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1985;144(2):261–265PubMed

16.

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(11):1630–1636PubMed

17.

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(3):325–329PubMedCrossRef

18.

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(3):823–829PubMed

19.

Goerres GW, von Schulthess GK, Steinert HC. Why most PET of lung and head-and-neck cancer will be PET/CT. J Nucl Med 2004;45 Suppl 1:66S–71SPubMed

20.

Goerres GW, Stupp R, Barghouth G, Hany TF, Pestalozzi B, Dizendorf E, et al. The value of PET, CT and in-line PET/CT in patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumours: long-term outcome of treatment with imatinib mesylate. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2005;32(2):153–162PubMedCrossRef

21.

Goerres GW, Kamel E, Seifert B, Burger C, Buck A, Hany TF, et al. Accuracy of image coregistration of pulmonary lesions in patients with non-small cell lung cancer using an integrated PET/CT system. J Nucl Med 2002;43(11):1469–1475PubMed

22.

Hany TF, Steinert HC, Goerres GW, Buck A, von Schulthess GK. PET diagnostic accuracy: improvement with in-line PET-CT system: initial results. Radiology 2002;225(2):575–581PubMed

23.

Sakai F, Sone S, Kiyono K, Maruyama A, Oguchi M, Kawai T, et al. Computed tomography of neck lymph nodes involved with malignant lymphoma: comparison with ultrasound. Radiat Med 1991;9(6):203–208PubMed

24.

Eisenberg PJ, Papanicolaou N, Lee MJ, Yoder IC. Diagnostic imaging in the evaluation of renal lymphoma. Leuk Lymphoma 1994;16(1–2):37–50PubMedCrossRef

25.

Bechtold RE, Karstaedt N, Wolfman NT, Glass TA. Prolonged hepatic enhancement on computed tomography in a case of hepatic lymphoma. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1985;9(1):186–189PubMedCrossRef

26.

Pombo F, Rodriguez E, Caruncho MV, Villalva C, Crespo C. CT attenuation values and enhancing characteristics of thoracoabdominal lymphomatous adenopathies. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1994;18(1):59–62PubMedCrossRef

27.

Feuerbach S, Lukas P, Gmeinwieser J. [False interpretations of computed tomograms in malignant lymph node diseases of the pelvis and abdomen]. Digitale Bilddiagn 1984;4(4):176–180PubMed

28.

Flecknoe-Brown S. Positron emission tomography scanning in patients with lymphoma. Intern Med J 2005;35(2):137–138PubMedCrossRef

29.

Hutchings M, Eigtved AI, Specht L. FDG-PET in the clinical management of Hodgkin lymphoma. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2004;52(1):19–32PubMed

30.

Reske SN. PET and restaging of malignant lymphoma including residual masses and relapse. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003;30 Suppl 1:S89–S96PubMedCrossRef

31.

Dittmann H, Sokler M, Kollmannsberger C, Dohmen BM, Baumann C, Kopp A, et al. Comparison of¹⁸FDG-PET with CT scans in the evaluation of patients with residual and recurrent Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Oncol Rep 2001;8(6):1393–1399PubMed

32.

Hermann S, Wormanns D, Pixberg M, Hunold A, Heindel W, Jurgens H, et al. Staging in childhood lymphoma: differences between FDG-PET and CT. Nuklearmedizin 2005;44(1):1–7PubMed

33.

Kazama T, Faria SC, Varavithya V, Phongkitkarun S, Ito H, Macapinlac HA. FDG PET in the evaluation of treatment for lymphoma: clinical usefulness and pitfalls. Radiographics 2005;25(1):191–207PubMed

34.

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(2):475–481PubMed

35.

Carr R, Barrington SF, Madan B, O’Doherty MJ, Saunders CA, van der Walt J, et al. Detection of lymphoma in bone marrow by whole-body positron emission tomography. Blood 1998;91(9):3340–3346PubMed

36.

Moog F, Kotzerke J, Reske SN. FDG PET can replace bone scintigraphy in primary staging of malignant lymphoma. J Nucl Med 1999;40(9):1407–1413PubMed

37.

Moog F, Bangerter M, Kotzerke J, Guhlmann A, Frickhofen N, Reske SN. 18-F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography as a new approach to detect lymphomatous bone marrow. J Clin Oncol 1998;16(2):603–609PubMed

38.

Castellucci P, Zinzani P, Pourdehnad M, Alinari L, Nanni C, Farsad M, et al.¹⁸F-FDG PET in malignant lymphoma: significance of positive findings. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2005;32(7):749–756PubMedCrossRef

39.

Allen-Auerbach M, Yeom K, Park J, Phelps M, Czernin J. Standard PET/CT of the chest during shallow breathing is inadequate for comprehensive staging of lung cancer. J Nucl Med 2006;47(2):298–301PubMed

40.

Goerres GW, Kamel E, Heidelberg TN, Schwitter MR, Burger C, von Schulthess GK. PET-CT image co-registration in the thorax: influence of respiration. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2002;29(3):351–360PubMedCrossRef

41.

Bockisch A, Beyer T, Antoch G, Freudenberg LS, Kuhl H, Debatin JF, et al. Positron emission tomography/computed tomography—imaging protocols, artifacts, and pitfalls. Mol Imaging Biol 2004;6(4):188–199PubMedCrossRef

42.

Tatsumi M, Cohade C, Nakamoto Y, Fishman EK, Wahl RL. Direct comparison of FDG PET and CT findings in patients with lymphoma: initial experience. Radiology 2005;237(3):1038–1045PubMed

43.

Bar-Shalom R, Yefremov N, Guralnik L, Gaitini D, Frenkel A, Kuten A, et al. Clinical performance of PET/CT in evaluation of cancer: additional value for diagnostic imaging and patient management. J Nucl Med 2003;44(8):1200–1209PubMed

Title: Value of PET/CT versus PET and CT performed as separate investigations in patients with Hodgkin’s disease and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma
Authors: Christian la Fougère
Walter Hundt
Nicole Bröckel
Thomas Pfluger
Alexander Haug
Bernhard Scher
Marcus Hacker
Klaus Hahn
Maximilan Reiser
Reinhold Tiling
Publication date: 01-12-2006
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging / Issue 12/2006
Print ISSN: 1619-7070
Electronic ISSN: 1619-7089
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-006-0171-x

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Value of PET/CT versus PET and CT performed as separate investigations in patients with Hodgkin’s disease and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 12/2006

Non-specific binding of [18F]FDG to calcifications in atherosclerotic plaques: experimental study of mouse and human arteries

A note from the lighthouse

Data acquisition and analysis: the strength of methodology in nuclear medicine and molecular imaging

Microvessel density and p53 in detecting cervical cancer by FDG PET in cases of suspected recurrence

Fifth European Paediatric Nuclear Medicine Symposium

Society communications