Could we avoid computing TMTV of DLBCL patients in routine practice?

  • Eric LaffonEmail author
  • Roger Marthan
Letter to the Editor

Dear Editor,

Recently, Aide et al. commented on the study of Toledano et al. who retrospectively investigated the prognostic value of baseline total metabolic tumor volume (TMTV, assessed with a 41% isocontour method) combined with gene expression profiling in a series of 114 diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients [ 1, 2]. Aide et al. concluded that this study paved the way for combining 18F-FDG metrics with molecular techniques to identify DLBCL patients with the worst prognosis who could thus benefit from alternative therapeutic strategies. However, they also stressed the need for a reliable and user-friendly outlining tool, a mandatory step previously emphasized by Ylias et al. who selected in their study an outlining method different from that of Toledano et al., using a lower standard uptake value (SUV) threshold of 2.5 g.mL −1 [ 3, 4, 5]. Aide et al. illustrated this issue of the scale of the TMTV assessment in daily practice by showing the results of three TMTV delineation...


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

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 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

The Ethics Committee of our Teaching Hospital approved this retrospective study and the requirement to obtain further informed consent of the example patient was waived.


  1. 1.
    Aide N, Lasnon C, Damaj G. Combining baseline TMTV and gene profiling for a better risk stratification in diffuse large B cell lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45:677–9.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Toledano MN, Desbordes P, Banjar A, Gardin I, Vera P, Ruminy P, et al. Combination of baseline FDG PET/CT totalmetabolic tumour volume and gene expression profile have a robust predictive value in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2018;45:680–688.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ilyas H, Mikhaeel NG, Dunn JT, Rahman F, Møller H, Smith D, et al. Defining the optimal method for measuring baseline metabolic tumour volume in diffuse large B cell lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45:1142–54.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Laffon E, Marthan R. Optimal method for measuring baseline metabolic tumor volume in DLBCL patients: are statistical agreements of SUV ≥2.5 satisfactory? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018. Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ilyas H, Mikhaeel NG, Dunn JT, Rahman F, Møller H, Smith D, et al. Reply to the letter. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018; Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cottereau AS, Buvat I, Kanoun S, Versari A, Casasnovas O, Chauvie S, et al. Is there an optimal method for measuring baseline metabolic tumor volume in diffuse large B cell lymphoma? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45:1463–4.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Laffon E, Marthan R. On the cutoff of baseline Total metabolic tumor volume in high-tumor-burden follicular lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:919–20.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    JCGM. Evaluation of measurement data - guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement. wwwbipmorg, 2008.Google Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CHU de BordeauxBordeauxFrance
  2. 2.Centre de Recherche Cardio-Thoracique de BordeauxUniv. BordeauxBordeauxFrance
  3. 3.Centre de Recherche Cardio-Thoracique de BordeauxINSERM U-1045BordeauxFrance
  4. 4.Service de Médecine NucléaireHôpital du Haut-LévèquePessacFrance

Personalised recommendations