Advertisement

Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging

, Volume 53, Issue 4, pp 263–269 | Cite as

Predictive Value of Interim and End-of-Therapy 18F-FDG PET/CT in Patients with Follicular Lymphoma

  • Sun Ha Boo
  • Joo Hyun OEmail author
  • Soo Jin Kwon
  • Ie Ryung Yoo
  • Sung Hoon Kim
  • Gyeong Sin Park
  • Byung Ock Choi
  • Seung Eun Jung
  • Seok-Goo Cho
Original Article
  • 33 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) is the standard imaging modality for response evaluation in FDG-avid lymphoma, but the prognostic value is not established in follicular lymphoma (FL). This study investigated the prognostic value of Deauville 5-point scale (D5PS) from paired interim PET/CT (PETInterim) and end-of-induction therapy PET/CT (PETEOI) in patients with FL.

Methods

FL staging and response assessment PET/CT images from 2013 to 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. PETInterim was performed 3 or 4 cycles after chemotherapy and PETEOI after 6 or 8 cycles. D5PS scores of 1, 2, and 3 were considered as negative (−), and scores 4 and 5 were considered as positive (+). Statistical analysis was done using Cox regression analysis, Kaplan–Meier survival analysis, and the log-rank test.

Results

Thirty-three patients with set of baseline, interim, and end-of-induction therapy PET/CT studies were included. Ten patients (30.3%) had progression. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 38.8 months (range 3.5–72.7 months). On PETInterim, 23 patients were negative and 10 were positive. On PETEOI scans, 29 patients were negative, and 4 were positive. On multivariate analysis, PETEOI(−) was associated with longer PFS. PETInterim(+) and PETEOI(+) patients had a significantly shorter PFS than PETInterim(−) patients (39.9 months, 95% confidence interval [CI] 23.0–56.9, versus 55.5 months, 95% CI 49.7–61.2, p = 0.005) and PETEOI(−) patients (14.2 months, 95% CI 8.5–19.8, versus 60.5 months, 95% CI 52.1–69.0, p < 0.001).

Conclusion

For patients with FL, PETInterim and PETEOI response is predictive of PFS, and PETEOI(+) is an independent prognostic factor for progression of FL.

Keywords

Follicular lymphoma 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose Positron emission tomography Lugano classification Progression-free survival 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Martin Mawhinney for his assistance in data acquisition.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Sun Ha Boo, Joo Hyun O, Soo Jin Kwon, Ie Ryung Yoo, Sung Hoon Kim, Gyeongsin Park, Byung Ock Choi, Seung Eun Jung, Seok-Goo Cho declare that they have no conflict of interest. There is no source of funding.

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

Informed Consent

The Institutional Review Board of our institute approved this retrospective study, and the requirement to obtain informed consent was waived.

References

  1. 1.
    Smith A, Crouch S, Lax S, Li J, Painter D, Howell D, et al. Lymphoma incidence, survival and prevalence 2004–2014: sub-type analyses from the UK’s haematological malignancy research network. Br J Cancer. 2015;112:1575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Teras LR, DeSantis CE, Cerhan JR, Morton LM, Jemal A, Flowers CR. 2016 US lymphoid malignancy statistics by World Health Organization subtypes. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016;66:443–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Goldman L, Schafer AI. Goldman-Cecil medicine. 25th edition. Ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier/Saunders; 2016.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    McNamara C, Davies J, Dyer M, Hoskin P, Illidge T, Lyttelton M, et al. Guidelines on the investigation and management of follicular lymphoma. Br J Haematol. 2012;156:446–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cheson BD, Fisher RI, Barrington SF, Cavalli F, Schwartz LH, Zucca E, et al. Recommendations for initial evaluation, staging, and response assessment of Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma: the Lugano classification. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:3059–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Meignan M, Gallamini A, Meignan M, Gallamini A, Haioun C. Report on the first international workshop on interim-PET scan in lymphoma. Leuk Lymphoma. 2009;50:1257–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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;8:287–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Le Dortz L, De Guibert S, Bayat S, Devillers A, Houot R, Rolland Y, et al. Diagnostic and prognostic impact of 18F-FDG PET/CT in follicular lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:2307–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Luminari S, Biasoli I, Arcaini L, Versari A, Rusconi C, Merli F, et al. The use of FDG-PET in the initial staging of 142 patients with follicular lymphoma: a retrospective study from the FOLL05 randomized trial of the Fondazione Italiana Linfomi. Ann Oncol. 2013;24:2108–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wirth A, Foo M, Seymour JF, Macmanus MP, Hicks RJ. Impact of [18f] fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography on staging and management of early-stage follicular non-hodgkin lymphoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;71:213–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bishu S, Quigley JM, Bishu SR, Olsasky SM, Stem RA, Shostrom VK, 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;48:1548–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dupuis J, Berriolo-Riedinger A, Julian A, Brice P, Tychyj-Pinel C, Tilly H, et al. Impact of [(18)F] fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography response evaluation in patients with high-tumor burden follicular lymphoma treated with immunochemotherapy: a prospective study from the Groupe d’Etudes des Lymphomes de l’Adulte and GOELAMS. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:4317–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lopci E, Zanoni L, Chiti A, Fonti C, Santi I, Zinzani PL, et al. FDG PET/CT predictive role in follicular lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39:864–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lu Z, Lin M, Downe P, Chong S, Ling S. The prognostic value of mid- and post-treatment [(18)F] fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) in indolent follicular lymphoma. Ann Nucl Med. 2014;28:805–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Luminari S, Biasoli I, Versari A, Rattotti S, Bottelli C, Rusconi C, et al. The prognostic role of post-induction FDG-PET in patients with follicular lymphoma: a subset analysis from the FOLL05 trial of the Fondazione Italiana Linfomi (FIL). Ann Oncol. 2014;25:442–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Trotman J, Fournier M, Lamy T, Seymour JF, Sonet A, Janikova A, et al. Positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) after induction therapy is highly predictive of patient outcome in follicular lymphoma: analysis of PET-CT in a subset of PRIMA trial participants. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:3194–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zinzani PL, Musuraca G, Alinari L, Fanti S, Tani M, Stefoni V, et al. Predictive role of positron emission tomography in the outcome of patients with follicular lymphoma. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma. 2007;7:291–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Trotman J, Luminari S, Boussetta S, Versari A, Dupuis J, Tychyj C, et al. Prognostic value of PET-CT after first-line therapy in patients with follicular lymphoma: a pooled analysis of central scan review in three multicentre studies. Lancet Haematol. 2014;1:e17–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Salles G, Seymour JF, Offner F, Lopez-Guillermo A, Belada D, Xerri L, et al. Rituximab maintenance for 2 years in patients with high tumour burden follicular lymphoma responding to rituximab plus chemotherapy (PRIMA): a phase 3, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2011;377:42–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dreyling M, Ghielmini M, Marcus R, Salles G, Vitolo U, Ladetto M. Newly diagnosed and relapsed follicular lymphoma: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2014;25(Suppl 3):iii76–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Campo E, Swerdlow SH, Harris NL, Pileri S, Stein H, Jaffe ES. The 2008 WHO classification of lymphoid neoplasms and beyond: evolving concepts and practical applications. Blood. 2011;117:5019–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shustik J, Quinn M, Connors JM, Gascoyne RD, Skinnider B, Sehn LH. Follicular non-Hodgkin lymphoma grades 3A and 3B have a similar outcome and appear incurable with anthracycline-based therapy. Ann Oncol. 2010;22:1164–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wahlin BE, Yri OE, Kimby E, Holte H, Delabie J, Smeland EB, et al. Clinical significance of the WHO grades of follicular lymphoma in a population-based cohort of 505 patients with long follow-up times. Br J Haematol. 2012;156:225–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Meignan M, Cottereau AS, Versari A, Chartier L, Dupuis J, Boussetta S, et al. Baseline metabolic tumor volume predicts outcome in high–tumor-burden follicular lymphoma: a pooled analysis of three multicenter studies. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:3618–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Metser U, Mohan R, Beckley V, Moshonov H, Hodgson D, Murphy G. FDG PET/CT response assessment criteria for patients with Hodgkin’s and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma at end of therapy: a multiparametric approach. Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;50:46–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kim HJ, Lee R, Choi H, Paeng JC, Cheon GJ, Lee DS, et al. Application of quantitative indexes of FDG PET to treatment response evaluation in indolent lymphoma. Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;52:342–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Itti E, Meignan M, Berriolo-Riedinger A, Biggi A, Cashen AF, Vera P, et al. An international confirmatory study of the prognostic value of early PET/CT in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: comparison between Deauville criteria and DeltaSUVmax. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:1312–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Biggi A, Gallamini A, Chauvie S, Hutchings M, Kostakoglu L, Gregianin M, et al. International validation study for interim PET in ABVD-treated, advanced-stage hodgkin lymphoma: interpretation criteria and concordance rate among reviewers. J Nucl Med. 2013;54:683–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pregno P, Chiappella A, Bello M, Botto B, Ferrero S, Franceschetti S, et al. Interim 18-FDG-PET/CT failed to predict the outcome in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients treated at the diagnosis with rituximab-CHOP. Blood. 2012;119:2066–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Johnson P, Federico M, Kirkwood A, Fosså A, Berkahn L, Carella A, et al. Adapted treatment guided by interim PET-CT scan in advanced Hodgkin’s lymphoma. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:2419–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Korean Society of Nuclear Medicine 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of MedicineThe Catholic University of KoreaSeoulRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Department of Pathology, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of MedicineThe Catholic University of KoreaSeoulRepublic of Korea
  3. 3.Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of MedicineThe Catholic University of KoreaSeoulRepublic of Korea
  4. 4.Department of Radiology, Eunpyeong St. Mary’s Hospital, College of MedicineThe Catholic University of KoreaSeoulSouth Korea
  5. 5.Department of Hematology, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of MedicineThe Catholic University of KoreaSeoulRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations