Poor predictive value of positive interim FDG-PET/CT in primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma

  • Julien Lazarovici
  • Marie Terroir
  • Julia Arfi-Rouche
  • Jean-Marie Michot
  • Sacha Mussot
  • Valentina Florea
  • Maria-Rosa Ghigna
  • Peggy Dartigues
  • Cynthia Petrovanu
  • Alina Danu
  • Christophe Fermé
  • Vincent Ribrag
  • David Ghez
Original Article



Though commonly used to assess response to therapy, the prognostic value of interim FDG-PET/CT in Primary Mediastinal Large B-cell Lymphoma (PMBCL) is unclear.


We conducted a retrospective study on 36 consecutive patients treated at our institution for a PMBCL between 2006 and 2014. All patients with a positive interim FDG-PET/CT had undergone histological restaging consisting either in a surgical debulking of the residual lesion (15 patients) or a CT-guided core needle biopsy (two patients). All FDG-PET/CT were secondarily reviewed according to the more recent Deauville criteria.


Interim FDG-PET/CT was considered positive in 17/36 patients using visual evaluation. Among these patients, 14 had a Deauville score of 4. Histological restaging was negative in all but one case, showing inflammation and/or fibrosis. After a median follow-up of 48.5 months, a total of five patients have relapsed, two patients in the positive FDG-PET/CT group, and three patients in the negative FDG-PET/CT group, respectively.


These data indicate that a positive interim FDG-PET/CT does not reflect persistence of active disease in the vast majority of PMBCL cases. The relapse rate appears similar regardless of interim FDG-PET/CT results and interpretation criteria. This suggests that interim FDG-PET/CT has a poor positive predictive value, thus kt should be used with caution in PMBCL.


18FDG pet/Ct Primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma Positive predictive value 


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 research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Written consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. 1.
    Martelli M, Di Rocco A, Russo E, Perrone S, Foa R. Primary mediastinal lymphoma: diagnosis and treatment options. Expert Rev Hematol. 2015;8(2):173–86.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aoki T, Izutsu K, Suzuki R, Nakaseko C, Arima H, Shimada K, et al. Prognostic significance of pleural or pericardial effusion and the implication of optimal treatment in primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma: a multicenter retrospective study in Japan. Haematologica. 2014;99(12):1817–25.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kuruvilla J, Pintilie M, Tsang R, Nagy T, Keating A, Crump M. Salvage chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation are inferior for relapsed or refractory primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma compared with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Leuk Lymphoma. 2008;49:1329–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barrington SF, Mikhaeel NG, Kostakoglu L, Meignan M, Hutchings M, Mueller SP, et al. Role of imaging in the staging and response assessment of lymphoma: consensus of the international conference on malignant lymphomas imaging working group. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(27):3048–58.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle 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(27):3059–68.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Adams HJ, Nievelstein RA, Kwee TC. Prognostic value of complete remission status at end-of-treatment FDG-PET in R-CHOP-treated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Haematol. 2015;170(2):185–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Adams HJ, Nievelstein RA, Kwee TC. Systematic review and meta-analysis on the prognostic value of complete remission status at FDG-PET in Hodgkin lymphoma after completion of first-line therapy. Ann Hematol. 2016;95(1):1–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Juweid ME, Stroobants S, Hoekstra OS, Mottaghi 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(5):571–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cerci JJ, Pracchia LF, Linardi CC, Pitella FA, Delbeke D, Izaki M, et al. 18F-FDG PET after 2 cycles of ABVD predicts event-free survival in early and advanced Hodgkin lymphoma. J Nucl Med. 2010;51(9):1337–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gallamini A, Rigacci L, Merli F, Nassi L, Bosi A, Capodanno I, et al. The predictive value of positron emission tomography scanning performed after two courses of standard therapy on treatment outcome in advanced stage Hodgkin’s disease. Haematologica. 2006;91(4):475–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hutchings M, Kostakoglu L, Zaucha JM, Malkowski B, Biggi A, Danielewicz I, et al. In vivo treatment sensitivity testing with positron emission tomography/computed tomography after one cycle of chemotherapy for Hodgkin lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(25):2705–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hutchings M, Loft A, Hansen M, Pedersen LM, Buhl T, Jurlander J, et al. FDG-PET after two cycles of chemotherapy predicts treatment failure and progression-free survival in Hodgkin lymphoma. Blood. 2006;107(1):52–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zinzani PL, Rigacci L, Stefoni V, Broccoli A, Puccini B, Castagnoli A, et al. Early interim 18F-FDG PET in Hodgkin’s lymphoma: evaluation on 304 patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39(1):4–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Adams HJ, Kwee TC. Controversies on the prognostic value of interim FDG-PET in advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma. Eur J Haematol. 2016;97(6):491–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gonzalez-Barca E, Canales M, Cortes M, Vidal MJ, Salar A, Oriol A, et al. Predictive value of interim 18F-FDG-PET/CT for event-free survival in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma homogenously treated in a phase II trial with six cycles of R-CHOP-14 plus pegfilgrastim as first-line treatment. Nucl Med Commun. 2013;34(10):946–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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(9):1312–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mamot C, Klingbiel D, Hitz F, Renner C, Pabst T, Driessen C, et al. Final results of a prospective evaluation of the predictive value of interim positron emission tomography in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma treated with R-CHOP-14 (SAKK 38/07). J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(23):2523–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Moskowitz CH, Schoder H, Teruya-Feldstein J, Sima C, Iasonos A, Portlock CS, et al. Risk-adapted dose-dense immunochemotherapy determined by interim FDG-PET in advanced-stage diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(11):1896–903.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Itti E, Lin C, Dupuis J, Paone G, Capacchione D, Rahmouni A, et al. Prognostic value of interim 18F-FDG PET in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: SUV-based assessment at 4 cycles of chemotherapy. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(4):527–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cheah CY, Hofman MS, Seymour JF, Ritchie DS, Dickinson M, Wirth A, et al. The utility and limitations of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with computed tomography in patients with primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma: single institution experience and literature review. Leuk Lymphoma. 2015;56(1):49–56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Filippi AR, Piva C, Giunta F, Bello M, Chiapella A, Caracciolo D, et al. Radiation therapy in primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma with positron emission tomography positivity after rituximab chemotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;87(2):311–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Martelli M, Ceriani L, Zucca E, Zinzani PL, Ferreri AJ, Vitolo U, et al. [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography predicts survival after chemoimmunotherapy for primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma: results of the international Extranodal lymphoma study group IELSG-26 study. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(17):1769–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vassilakopoulos TP, Pangalis GA, Chatziioannou S, Papageorgiou S, Angelopoulou MK, Galani Z, et al. PET/CT in primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma responding to rituximab-CHOP: an analysis of 106 patients regarding prognostic significance and implications for subsequent radiotherapy. Leukemia. 2016;30(1):238–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    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(8):1257–60. doi: 10.1080/10428190903040048.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hamlin PA, Portlock CS, Straus DJ, Noy A, Singer A, Horwitz SM, et al. Primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma: optimal therapy and prognostic factor analysis in 141 consecutive patients treated at memorial Sloan Kettering from 1980 to 1999. Br J Haematol. 2005;130(5):691–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2141.2005.05661.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Savage KJ, Al-Rajhi N, Voss N, Paltiel C, Klasa R, Gascoyne RD, et al. Favorable outcome of primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma in a single institution: the British Columbia experience. Ann Oncol. 2006;17(1):123–30. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdj030.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zinzani PL, Martelli M, Bertini M, Gianni AM, Devizzi L, Federico M, et al. Induction chemotherapy strategies for primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma with sclerosis: a retrospective multinational study on 426 previously untreated patients. Haematologica. 2002;87(12):1258–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Massoud M, Koscielny S, Lapusan S, Bosq J, Ribrag V. Primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphomas treated with dose-intensified CHOP alone or CHOP combined with radiotherapy. Leuk Lymphoma. 2008;49(8):1510–5. doi: 10.1080/10428190802203788.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tilly H, Lepage E, Coiffier B, Blanc M, Herbrecht R, Bosly A, et al. Intensive conventional chemotherapy (ACVBP regimen) compared with standard CHOP for poor-prognosis aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Blood. 2003;102(13):4284–9. doi: 10.1182/blood-2003-02-0542.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Adams HJ, Kwee TC. Prognostic value of interim FDG-PET in R-CHOP-treated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2016;106:55–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Giunta F, Zotta M, Menga M, Balma M, Bello M, Passera R, et al. Using PET-CT in the restaging of primitive mediastinal B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL) after chemotherapy: which criteria should we use? Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;59(2):214–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Avigdor A, Sirotkin T, Kedmi M, Ribakovsy E, Berkowicz M, Davidovitz Y, et al. The impact of R-VACOP-B and interim FDG-PET/CT on outcome in primary mediastinal large B cell lymphoma. Ann Hematol. 2014;93(8):1297–304. doi: 10.1007/s00277-014-2043-y.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zinzani PL, Tani M, Trisolini R, Fanti S, Stefoni V, Alifano M, et al. Histological verification of positive positron emission tomography findings in the follow-up of patients with mediastinal lymphoma. Haematologica. 2007;92(6):771–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Adams HJ. Proportion of false-positive lesions at interim and end-of-treatment FDG-PET in lymphoma as determined by histology: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Radiol. 2016;85(11):1963–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julien Lazarovici
    • 1
  • Marie Terroir
    • 2
  • Julia Arfi-Rouche
    • 3
  • Jean-Marie Michot
    • 4
  • Sacha Mussot
    • 5
  • Valentina Florea
    • 5
  • Maria-Rosa Ghigna
    • 6
  • Peggy Dartigues
    • 7
  • Cynthia Petrovanu
    • 1
  • Alina Danu
    • 1
  • Christophe Fermé
    • 1
  • Vincent Ribrag
    • 1
  • David Ghez
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of HematologyGustave Roussy and Université Paris SaclayVillejuifFrance
  2. 2.Department of Nuclear Medicine and Endocrine OncologyGustave Roussy and Université Paris SaclayVillejuifFrance
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyGustave Roussy and Université Paris SaclayVillejuifFrance
  4. 4.Department of Drug Development (DITEP)Gustave Roussy and Université Paris SaclayVillejuifFrance
  5. 5.Department of Thoracic SurgeryMarie Lannelongue HospitalLe Plessis RobinsonFrance
  6. 6.Department of PathologyMarie Lannelongue HospitalLe Plessis RobinsonFrance
  7. 7.Department of PathologyGustave Roussy and Université Paris SaclayVillejuifFrance

Personalised recommendations