Onkologie. 2009:3(3):164-169

The current position of positron emission tomography and combined positron emission tomography with computed tomography in initial staging and response assessment in patients with non-Hodgkin´s lymphoma

MUDr. Tomáš Papajík CSc1, Miroslav Mysliveček2, Magdalena Skopalová3, Alaxander Malán4, Vladimír Koza5, Marek Trněný6, Karel Indrák1
1 Hemato-onkologická klinika FN a LF UP v Olomouci
2 Klinika nukleární medicíny FN a LF UP v Olomouci
3 PET centrum, Nemocnice Na Homolce, Praha
4 Oddělení nukleární medicíny FN Plzeň
5 Hematologicko-onkologické oddělení, FN Plzeň
6 I. interní klinika 1. LF UK a VFN Praha

2-[fluorin-18] fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (18F-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) is a modern imaging modality reliable for the initial

diagnosis, staging and for the evaluation of therapeutic response of non-Hodgkin´s lymphoma (NHL). 18F-FDG PET has been demonstrated

more sensitive and specific than either 67gallium scintigraphy or computed tomography (CT). However, 18F-FDG PET may not accurately

localize pathological lesions. Actually, the integration of PET and CT (PET/CT) provides more precise anatomic localization of the lesions

on the 18F-FDG PET scans, thereby increasing specificity of the examination. All major NHL subtypes are usually 18F-FDG-avid, but some

indolent lymphoma and T-cell lymphoma have low 18F-FDG uptake and the PET results may not be reliable in such cases. 18F-FDG PET has

been shown to be important in response assessment of NHL, especially in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and the method has been

recently incorporated in the revised response criteria for malignant lymphoma. The independent prognostic value of early or interim 18F-FDG

PET for DLBCL has been established and should be a useful tool to modify ineffective therapy in high-risk patients. Some non-neoplastic

conditions (sarcoidosis, tuberculosis, fungal infections, inflammation, tissue reparation, etc.) may be a source of “false-positive” 18F-FDG PET

scans. Integrated PET-CT system can help improve the specificity of the findings and may contribute to better lesion characterization.

Keywords: 18F- FDG PET, PET/CT, non-Hodgkin´s lymphoma, staging, restaging.

Published: June 15, 2009  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Papajík T, Mysliveček M, Skopalová M, Malán A, Koza V, Trněný M, Indrák K. The current position of positron emission tomography and combined positron emission tomography with computed tomography in initial staging and response assessment in patients with non-Hodgkin´s lymphoma. Onkologie. 2009;3(3):164-169.
Download citation

References

  1. Cheson BD, Pfistner B, Juweid ME, et al. Revised response criteria for malignant lymphoma. J. Clin. Oncol. 2007; 25: 579-586. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  2. Barentsz J, Takahashi S, Oyen W, et al. Commonly used imaging techniques fo diagnosis and staging. J. Clin. Oncol. 2006; 24: 3234-3244. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  3. Jhanwar YS, Straus DJ. The role of PET in lymphoma. J. Nucl. Med. 2006; 47: 1326-1334. Go to PubMed...
  4. Barrington SF, O´Doherty MJ. Limitations of PET for imaging lymphoma. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 2003; 30 (Suppl. 1): 117-127. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  5. Schulthess GK, Steinert HC, Hany TF. Integrated PET/CT: Current applications and future directions. Radiology 2006; 238: 405-422. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  6. Phelps ME. Inaugural article: Positrone emission tomography provides molecular imaging of biological processes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2000; 97: 9226-9233. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  7. Warburg O. On the origin of cancer cells. Science 1956; 123: 309-314. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  8. Buchmann I, Reinhardt M, Elsner K, 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: 889-899. Go to original source...
  9. Kostakoglu L, Leonard JP, Kuji I, et al. Comparison of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and Ga-67 scintigraphy in evaluation of lymphoma. Cancer 2002; 94: 879-888. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  10. 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: 262-268. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  11. Thill R, Neuerburg J, Fabry U, et al. Comparison of findings with 18-FDG PET and CT in pretherapeutic staging of malignant lymphoma. Nuklearmedizin 1997; 36: 234-239. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  12. 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. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  13. Moog F, Bangerter M, Diederichs CG. Extranodal malignant lymphoma: detection with FDG PET versus CT. Radiology 1998; 2006: 475-481. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  14. Buchmann I, Reinhardt M, Elsner K, 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: 889-899. Go to original source...
  15. Hany TF, Steinert HC, Goerres GW, et al. PET diagnostic accuracy: improvement with in-line PET-CT system: initial results. Radiology 2002; 225: 575-581. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  16. Schaefer NG, Hany TF, Taverna C, 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: 823-829. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  17. Jerusalem G, Beguin Y, Najjar F, 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: 825-830. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  18. Elstrom R, Guan L, Baker G, et al. Utility of FDG-PET scanning in lymphoma by WHO classification. Blood 2003; 101: 3875-3876. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  19. Cheson BD, Horning SJ, Coiffier B, et al. Report of an international workshop to standardize response criteria for nonHodgkin´s lymphomnas. J. Clin. Oncol. 1999; 17: 1244-1253. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  20. Coiffier B, Gisselbrecht C, Herbrecht R, et al. LNH-84 regimen: a multicenter study of intensive chemotherapy in 737 patients with aggressive malignant lymphoma. J. Clin. Oncol. 1989; 7: 1018-1026. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  21. Zinzani PL, Magagnoli M, Chierichetti F, et al. The role of positron emission tomography (PET) in the management of lymphoma patients. Ann. Oncol. 1999; 10: 1181-1184. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  22. Spaepen K, Stroobants S, Dupont 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: 414-419. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  23. Cremerius U, Fabry U, Neuerburg J, et al. Positron emission tomography with 18F-FDG to detect residual disease after therapy for malignant lymphoma. Nucl. Med. Commun. 1998; 19: 1055-1063. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  24. 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 Nov; 39 (5-6): 543-553. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  25. Juweid ME, Wiseman GA, Vose JM, 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: 4652-4661. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  26. Reinhardt MJ, Herkel C, Altehoefer C, Finke J, Moser E. Computed tomography and 18F-FDG positron emission tomography for therapy control of Hodgkin's and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma patients: when do we really need FDG-PET? Ann. Oncol. 2005; 16: 1524-1529. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  27. Juweid ME, Stroobants S, Hoekstra OS, 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: 571-578. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  28. Cheson BD, Pfistner B, Juweid ME, et al. Revised response criteria for malignant lymphoma. J. Clin. Oncol. 2007; 25: 579-586. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  29. Bishu S, Quigley JM, Bishu SR, et al. Predictive value and diagnostic accuracy of F-18-fluoro-deoxy-glucose positron emission tomography treated grade 1 and 2 follicular lymphoma. Leuk. Lymphoma. 2007; 48: 1548-1555. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  30. Janikova A, Bolcak K, Pavlik T, Mayer J, Kral Z. Value of (18F) fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the management of follicular lymphoma: the end of a dilemma? Clin. Lymphoma Myeloma. 2008; 8: 287-293. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  31. Gill S, Wolf M, Prince HM, et al. (18F) fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography scanning for staging, response assessment, and disease surveillance in patients with mantle cell lymphoma. Clin. Lymphoma Myeloma. 2008; 8: 159-165. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  32. Brepoels L, Stroobants S, De Wever W, et al. Positron emission tomography in mantle cell lymphoma. Leuk. Lymphoma 2008; 49: 1693-1701. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  33. Pro B, Nunez RF, Romaguera J, et al. Achievement of FDGPET negativity does not predict durale response in T-cell lymphoma. Blood 2006; 108: 2404a. Go to original source...
  34. Cahu X, Bodet-Milin C, Gastinne T, et al. Interest and Prognosis Value of Fluorine-18-Fluoro-2-Deoxy-D-Glucose Positron Emission Tomography ([18F] FDG-PET/CT) in Aggressive T-Cell Lymphomas. Blood 2008; 112: 2835a. Go to original source...
  35. Römer W, Hanauske AR, Ziegler S, et al. Positron emission tomography in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: assessment of chemotherapy with fluorodeoxyglucose. Blood 1998; 91: 4464-4471.
  36. Jerusalem G, Beguin Y, Fassotte MF, 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: 613-618. Go to PubMed...
  37. Kostakoglu L, Coleman M, Leonard JP, et al. PET predicts prognosis after 1 cycle of chemotherapy in aggressive lymphoma and Hodgkin's disease. J. Nucl. Med. 2002; 43: 1018-1027. Go to PubMed...
  38. Spaepen K, Stroobants S, Dupont P, et al. Early restaging positron emission tomography with (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose predicts outcome in patients with aggressive nonHodgkin's lymphoma. Ann. Oncol. 2002; 13: 1356-1363. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  39. Haioun C, Itti E, Rahmouni A, et al. (18F) fluoro-2-deoxyD-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) in aggressive lymphoma: an early prognostic tool for predicting patient outcome. Blood 2005; 106: 1376-1381. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  40. Trněný M, Jaeger U, Belohlavek O, et al. Early whole body F18-FDG positron emission tomography (PET) restaging has significant prognostic impact in diffuse large cell lymphomas (DLCL-B). Ann. Oncol. 2005; 16 (Suppl.5): 122-122. Go to original source...
  41. Castellucci P, Nanni C, Farsad M, et al. Potential pitfalls of 18F-FDG PET in a large series of patients treated for malignant lymphoma: prevalence and scan interpretation. Nucl. Med. Commun. 2005; 26: 689-694. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  42. Sonet A, Graux C, Nollevaux MC, et al. Unsuspected FDGPET findings in the follow-up of patients with lymphoma. Ann. Hematol. 2007; 86: 9-15. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  43. Bakheet SM, Powe J. Benign causes of 18-FDG uptake on whole body imaging. Semin. Nucl. Med. 1998; 28: 352-358. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...




Oncology

Madam, Sir,
please be aware that the website on which you intend to enter, not the general public because it contains technical information about medicines, including advertisements relating to medicinal products. This information and communication professionals are solely under §2 of the Act n.40/1995 Coll. Is active persons authorized to prescribe or supply (hereinafter expert).
Take note that if you are not an expert, you run the risk of danger to their health or the health of other persons, if you the obtained information improperly understood or interpreted, and especially advertising which may be part of this site, or whether you used it for self-diagnosis or medical treatment, whether in relation to each other in person or in relation to others.

I declare:

  1. that I have met the above instruction
  2. I'm an expert within the meaning of the Act n.40/1995 Coll. the regulation of advertising, as amended, and I am aware of the risks that would be a person other than the expert input to these sites exhibited


No

Yes

If your statement is not true, please be aware
that brings the risk of danger to their health or the health of others.