Advertisement

Annals of Nuclear Medicine

, 18:519 | Cite as

18p-FDG PET is superior to67Ga SPECT in the staging of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma

  • Fumiyasu Yamamoto
  • Eriko Tsukamoto
  • Kunihiro Nakada
  • Toshiki Takei
  • Songji Zhao
  • Masahiro Asaka
  • Nagara Tamaki
Original Article

Abstract

Objective

Our study aims to compare diagnostic accuracy between18F-FDG PET and67Ga SPECT in the staging of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

Methods

Twenty-eight patients with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, underwent18F-FDG PET,67Ga SPECT and CT for the pretreatment staging of malignant lymphoma between August 1999 and March 2002.18F-FDG PET imaging was obtained 60 minutes after the intravenous administration of 185 MBq of18F-FDG.67Ga SPECT imaging was obtained 2 days after the intravenous administration of 148 MBq of67Ga.18F-FDG PET and 67Ga SPECT were performed within one month. Both imagings were performed on the area from the neck to the pelvis. The18F-FDG PET and67Ga SPECT findings were compared with the CT findings and the clinical course.

Results

Sixty-six nodal lesions were clinically confirmed. Of these, 32 were identified by both18F-FDG PET and67Ga SPECT. The remaining 34 lesions were identified only by18F-FDG PET. The mean (± SD) sizes of the nodes were 34.7 ± 32.4 mm for18F-FDG-positive and67Ga-positive lesions and 15.7 ± 8.3 mm for18F-FDG-positive and67Ga-negative lesions (p >; 0.001). Of the 23 extranodal lesions, 12 were identified by both18F-FDG PET and67Ga SPECT, whereas 6 lesions were identified by only18F-FDG PET. Five lesions were not identified by either technique. No18F-FDG-negative but67Ga-positive nodal or extranodal lesions were observed. The difference in findings between the two studies is related to the difference in the size but not in the histology or site of the lesions.

Conclusion

18F-FDG PET detected significantly more lesions particularly small lesions than67Ga SPECT. Thus,18F-FDG PET is considered to be superior to67Ga SPECT in the staging of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

Key words

18F-FDG 67Ga citrate emission computed tomography non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma 

Referrences

  1. 1.
    Schoder H, Meta J, Yap Ariannejad M, Rao J, Phelps ME, et al. Effect of whole-body18F-FDG PET imaging on clinical staging and management of patients with malignant lymphoma.J Nucl Med 2001 ; 42:1139–1143.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Som P, Atkins HL, Bandoyphadhyay D, Fowler JS, MacGregor RR, Matsui K, et al. A fluorinated glucose analog, 2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (F-18).J Nucl Med 1980;21:670–675.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schiepers C, Hoh CK. Positron emission tomography as a diagnostic tool in oncology.Eur Radiol 1998; 8:1481–1494.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rigo P, Paulus P, Kaschten BJ, Hustinx R, Bury T, Jerusalem G, et al. Oncological applications of positron emission tomography with fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose.Eur J Nucl Med 1996; 23:1641–1674.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Newman JS, Francis IR, Kaminski MS, et al. Imaging of lymphoma with PET with 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glu-cose: correlation with CT.Radiology 1994; 190:111–116.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Leskinen-Kallio S, Ruotsalainen U, Nagren K, Teras M, Joensuu H. Uptake of carbon-11-methionine and fluoro-deoxyglucose in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: a PET study.J Nucl Med 1991; 32:1211–1218.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jerusalem G, Warland V, Najjar F, Paulus P, Fassotte MF, Fillet G, et al. Whole- body18F-FDG PET for the evaluation of patients with Hodgkin’s disease and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.Nucl Med Commun 1999; 20:13–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hoh CK, Glaspy J, Rosen P, et al. Whole-body TOG-PET imaging for staging of Hodgkin’ s disease and lymphoma.J Nucl Med 1997; 38:343–348.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Valk PE, Pounds TR, Wolkow HB, et al. PET-FDG wholebody imaging in staging Hodgkin’s disease: comparison to conventional imaging.J Nucl Med 1995; 36:199P.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cremerius U, Fabry U, Neuerburg J, Zimny M, Osieka R, Buell U. Positron emission tomography withI8F-FDG to detect residual disease after therapy for malignant lymphoma.Nucl Med Commun 1998; 19:1055–1063.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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 to-mography.Eur J Nucl Med 1998; 25:721–728.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rodriguez M, Ahlstrom H, Sundin A, Rehn S, Sundstrom C, Hagberg H, et al.18F FDG PET in gastric non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.Acta Oncol 1997; 36:577–584.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    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; 206:475–481.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bangerter M, Moog F, Buchmann I, Kotzerke J, Griesshammer M, Hafner M, et al. Whole-body 2-[18F]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) for accurate staging of Hodgkin’s disease.Ann Oncol 1998; 9:1117–1122.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jerusalem G, Beguin Y, Fassotte MF, Najjar F, Paulus P, Rigo P, et al. Whole-body positron emission tomography using18F-fluorodeoxyglucose for posttreatment evaluation in Hodgkin’s disease and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma has higher diagnostic and prognostic value than classical computed tomography scan imaging.Blood 1999; 94:429–433.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bangerter M, Kotzerke J, Griesshammer M, Eisner K, Reske SN, Bergmann L. Positron emission tomography with 18-fluorodeoxyglucose in the staging and follow up of lymphoma in the chest.Acta Oncol 1999; 38:799–804.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wiedmann E, Baican B, Hertel A, Baum RP, Chow KU, Knupp B, et al. Positron emission tomography (PET) for staging and evaluation of response to treatment in patients with Hodgkin’s disease.Leuk Lymphoma 1999; 34:545–551.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kostakoglu L, Goldsmith SJ. Fluorine-18 fluorodeoxy-glucose positron emission tomography in the staging and follow-up of lymphoma: is it time to shift gear?Eur J Nucl Med 2000; 27:1564–1578.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bekerman C, Hoffer PB, Bitran JD. The role of gallium-67 in the clinical evaluation of cancer.Semin Nucl Med 1985; 14:296–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Anderson KC Lew MA, Gorgone BC Martel J, Leamy CB, Sullivan B. High-dose gallium imaging in lymphoma.Am J Med 1983; 75:327–331.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Front D, Israel O, Epelbaum R, et al. Ga-67 SPECT before and after treatment of lymphoma.Radiology 1990; 175:515–519.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tumeh SS, Rosenthal DS, Kaplan WD, English RJ, Holman BL. Lymphoma: Evaluation with Ga-67 SPECT.Radiology 1987; 164:111–114.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shiga T, Tsukamoto E, Nakada K, Morita K, Kato T, et al. Comparison of18F-FDG,131I-Na, and201Tl in diagnosis of recurrent or metastatic thyroid carcinoma.J Nucl Med 2001;42:414–419.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kato T, Tsukamoto E, Kuge Y, Katoh C, Nambu T, Nobuta A, et al. Clinical role of18F-FDG PET for initial staging of patients with extrahepatic bile duct cancer.Eur J Nucl Med 2002; 29:1047–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Seabold JE, Votaw ML, Keyes JW Jr, Foley WD, Balachandran S, Gill SP, et al. Gallium-67 citrate scanning.Arch Intern Med 1976; 136:1370–1374.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rudders RA, McCaffrey JA, Kahn PC. The relative roles of gallium-67-citrate scanning and lymphangiography in the current management of malignant lymphoma.Cancer 1977; 40:1439–1443.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Longo DL, Schilsky RL, Blei L, Cano R, Johnston GS, Young RC. Gallium-67 scanning: Limited usefulness in staging patients with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.Am J Med 1980; 68:695–700.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bar-Shalom R, Mor M, Yefremov N, Goldsmith SJ. The value of Ga-67 scintigraphy and F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in staging and monitoring the response of lymphoma to treatment.Semin Nucl Med 2001; 31:177–190.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Morris J. The stage is set for the diffusion of positron emission tomography in oncology.Med J Aust 1999; 171:527–528.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Willkomm P, Palmedo H, Grunwald F, Ruhlmann J, Biersack HJ. Functional imaging of Hodgkin’s disease with FDG-PET and gallium-67.Nuklearmedizin 1998; 37:251–253.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Paul R. Comparison of fluorine-18-2-fluorodeoxyglucose and gallium 67 citrate imaging for detection of lymphoma.J Nucl Med 1987; 28:288–292.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Okada J, Yoshikawa K, Imazeki K, Minoshima S, Uno K, Itami J, et al. The use of FDG PET in the detection and management of malignant lymphomas: correlation of uptake with prognosis.J Nucl Med 1991; 32:686–691.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kostakoglu L, Yeh SDJ, Portlock C, Heelan R, Yao TJ, Niedzwiecki D, et al. Validation of gallium-67 citrate single photon emission tomography in biopsy-confirmed residual Hodgkin’s disease in the mediastinum.J Nucl Med 1992; 33:345–350.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bartold SP, Donohue KJ, Fletcher JW, Haynie TP, Henkin RE, Silberstein EB, et al. Procedure guideline for gallium scintigraphy in the evaluation of malignant disease.J Nucl Med 1997; 38:990–994.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Gallamini A, Biggi A, Fruttero A, Pugno F, Cavallero G, Pregno P, et al. Revisiting the prognostic role of gallium scintigraphy in low-grade non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.Eur J Nucl Med 1997; 24:1499–1506.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fumiyasu Yamamoto
    • 1
    • 2
  • Eriko Tsukamoto
    • 2
  • Kunihiro Nakada
    • 2
  • Toshiki Takei
    • 2
  • Songji Zhao
    • 2
  • Masahiro Asaka
    • 1
  • Nagara Tamaki
    • 2
  1. 1.Third Department of Internal MedicineHokkaido University Graduate School of MedicineKita-ku, SapporoJapan
  2. 2.Department of Nuclear MedicineHokkaido University Graduate School of MedicineKita-ku, SapporoJapan

Personalised recommendations