Reply to the Letter to the Editor from Peters et al: On the use of the liver as a reference organ for Deauville scoring in lymphoma patients and how it may be affected by liver steatosis

  • Nicolas AideEmail author
  • Thibault Salomon
  • Charline Lasnon

We thank the Editor-in-Chief for the opportunity to reply to Peters et al. who questioned the use of the liver as a reference organ for Deauville scoring in their letter related to our study assessing the impact of liver steatosis on the Deauville score (DS) [1].

First, we totally agree with the authors that it makes little difference to the DS whether SULmax or SUVmax is used, since the uptake ratio between lymphoma lesions and the liver is used to determine the DS. We chose to explore only SULmax to comply with actual guidelines that recommend the use of SUL rather than SUV [2]. However, SUVmax results were also provided because they are more commonly used in daily practice. Similar correlations were expected but, nevertheless, had to be provided to fully cover the topic.

Concerning the opposite inverse relationship between tumour SUV and blood glucose, the paper referenced by the authors [3] stated that, after glucose loading in five patients, a decrease in the SUVs was found in...



The authors are indebted to Prof. Rodney Hicks, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, and University of Melbourne, Australia. for his advice.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest


Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the principles of the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

In accordance with European regulations, French observational studies without any additional therapy or monitoring procedures do not need the approval of an ethics committee. Nonetheless, we sought approval to collect data for our study from the National Committee for Data Privacy, the National Commission on Informatics and Liberty (CNIL), with registration no. 2,080,317 v 0.


  1. 1.
    Salomon T, Nganoa C, Gac AC, Fruchart C, Damaj G, Aide N, et al. Assessment of alteration in liver (18)F-FDG uptake due to steatosis in lymphoma patients and its impact on the Deauville score. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45:941–50. Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boellaard R, Delgado-Bolton R, Oyen WJ, Giammarile F, Tatsch K, Eschner W, et al. FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:328–54. Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lindholm P, Minn H, Leskinen-Kallio S, Bergman J, Ruotsalainen U, Joensuu H. Influence of the blood glucose concentration on FDG uptake in cancer – a PET study. J Nucl Med. 1993;34:1–6.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barrington SF, Kluge R. FDG PET for therapy monitoring in Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphomas. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44:97–110. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nanni C, Cottereau AS, Lopci E, Bodet-Milin C, Coronado M, Pro B, et al. Report of the 6th International Workshop on PET in lymphoma. Leuk Lymphoma. 2017;58:2298–303. Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baudino B, D’Agata F, Caroppo P, Castellano G, Cauda S, Manfredi M, et al. The chemotherapy long-term effect on cognitive functions and brain metabolism in lymphoma patients. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;56:559–68.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ponto LL, Menda Y, Magnotta VA, Yamada TH, Denburg NL, Schultz SK. Frontal hypometabolism in elderly breast cancer survivors determined by [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET): a pilot study. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2015;30:587–94. Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zimmer P, Mierau A, Bloch W, Struder HK, Hulsdunker T, Schenk A, et al. Post-chemotherapy cognitive impairment in patients with B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma: a first comprehensive approach to determine cognitive impairments after treatment with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone or rituximab and bendamustine. Leuk Lymphoma. 2015;56:347–52. Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ishizu K, Nishizawa S, Yonekura Y, Sadato N, Magata Y, Tamaki N, et al. Effects of hyperglycemia on FDG uptake in human brain and glioma. J Nucl Med. 1994;35:1104–9.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Beauregard JM, Hofman MS, Kong G, Hicks RJ. The tumour sink effect on the biodistribution of 68Ga-DOTA-octreotate: implications for peptide receptor radionuclide therapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39:50–6. Scholar
  11. 11.
    Barrington SF, Mikhaeel NG, Kostakoglu L, Meignan M, Hutchings M, Mueller S, et al. Reply to G. Keramida et al. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:4121–2. Scholar
  12. 12.
    Meignan M, Cottereau AS. Interim PET in lymphoma: from Deauville to Peking criteria. On the road, again. Leuk Lymphoma. 2018;59:523–5. Scholar
  13. 13.
    Barrington SF, Sulkin T, Forbes A, Johnson PWM. All that glitters is not gold – new reconstruction methods using Deauville criteria for patient reporting. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45:316–7. Scholar
  14. 14.
    Enilorac B, Lasnon C, Nganoa C, Fruchart C, Gac AC, Damaj G, et al. Does PET reconstruction method affect Deauville scoring in lymphoma patients? J Nucl Med. 2018;59:1049–55. Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lasnon C, Enilorac B, Aide N. Reply to: "All that glitters is not gold – new reconstruction methods using Deauville criteria for patient reporting". Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45:878–81. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Nuclear medicine DepartmentUniversity HospitalCaenFrance
  2. 2.INSERM ANTICIPEUniversity of CaenCaenFrance
  3. 3.François Baclesse cancer CentreCaenFrance

Personalised recommendations