Advertisement

Reply to: “All that glitters is not gold – new reconstruction methods using Deauville criteria for patient reporting”

  • Charline Lasnon
  • Blandine Enilorac
  • Nicolas Aide
Letter to the Editor

We thank the Editor-in-Chief for allowing us the opportunity to reply to Barrington et al. [1] and provide some insight into the issue of advanced algorithms in PET imaging of lymphoma patients. We believe that, although advances in PET technology require scientific evaluation, they are a chance to improve the diagnostic/prognostic ability of PET, and should not be considered to be the source of a detrimental effect on Deauville scoring until proven otherwise. In the case of discrepancies between former and new PET systems, studies seeking to determine which reconstruction method provides the best patient risk stratification should be the gold standard. Our main point is that the impact of newer reconstruction methods on Deauville scoring and delta standardized uptake value (ΔSUV), including at least point spread function (PSF) modelling, is in fact only minimal.

Amongst reconstruction algorithms released over the last few years, PSF modelling significantly increases ΔSUV metrics in...

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

N. Aide received a research grant from Siemens for the work described in reference 13. Other authors declare no conflicts of interest related to this submission.

Ethical approval

According to European regulations, French observational studies without any additional therapy or monitoring procedures do not need ethics approval. Nonetheless, approval to collect data for results presented here was obtained from the National Committee for Data Privacy (registration no. 2084622v0).

References

  1. 1.
    Barrington SF, Sulkin T, Forbes A, Johnson PW. All that glitters is not gold - new reconstruction methods using Deauville criteria for patient reporting. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45(2):316–7.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-017-3893-z.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    van der Vos CS, Koopman D, Rijnsdorp S, Arends AJ, Boellaard R, van Dalen JA, et al. Quantification, improvement, and harmonization of small lesion detection with state-of-the-art PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44:4–16.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-017-3727-z.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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. 2017.  https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.117.202721.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Casasnovas RO, Meignan M, Berriolo-Riedinger A, Bardet S, Julian A, Thieblemont C, et al. SUVmax reduction improves early prognosis value of interim positron emission tomography scans in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Blood. 2011;118:37–43.  https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2010-12-327767.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bodet-Milin C, Kraeber-Bodere F, Moreau P, Campion L, Dupas B, Le Gouill S. Investigation of FDG-PET/CT imaging to guide biopsies in the detection of histological transformation of indolent lymphoma. Haematologica. 2008;93:471–2.  https://doi.org/10.3324/haematol.12013.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schoder H, Noy A, Gonen M, Weng L, Green D, Erdi YE, et al. Intensity of 18fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in positron emission tomography distinguishes between indolent and aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:4643–51.  https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2005.12.072.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-014-2961-x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lasnon C, Enilorac B, Popotte H, Aide N. Impact of the EARL harmonization program on automatic delineation of metabolic active tumour volumes (MATVs). EJNMMI Res. 2017;7:30.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13550-017-0279-y.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Aide N, Lasnon C, Veit-Haibach P, Sera T, Sattler B, Boellaard R. EANM/EARL harmonization strategies in PET quantification: from daily practice to multicentre oncological studies. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44:17–31.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-017-3740-2.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cottereau AS, Hapdey S, Chartier L, Modzelewski R, Casasnovas O, Itti E, et al. Baseline total metabolic tumor volume measured with fixed or different adaptive thresholding methods equally predicts outcome in peripheral T cell lymphoma. J Nucl Med. 2017;58:276–81.  https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.116.180406.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kaalep A, Sera T, Oyen W, Krause BJ, Chiti A, Liu Y, et al. EANM/EARL FDG-PET/CT accreditation - summary results from the first 200 accredited imaging systems. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-017-3853-7.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Barrington SF, Kirkwood AA, Franceschetto A, Fulham MJ, Roberts TH, Almquist H, et al. PET-CT for staging and early response: results from the Response-Adapted Therapy in Advanced Hodgkin Lymphoma study. Blood. 2016;127:1531–8.  https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2015-11-679407.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Quak E, Le Roux PY, Hofman MS, Robin P, Bourhis D, Callahan J, et al. Harmonizing FDG PET quantification while maintaining optimal lesion detection: prospective multicentre validation in 517 oncology patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:2072–82.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-015-3128-0.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Nuclear Medicine Department, François Baclesse Cancer CentreCaenFrance
  2. 2.INSERM 1199 ANTICIPENormandie UniversityCaenFrance
  3. 3.Nuclear Medicine DepartmentUniversity HospitalCaenFrance

Personalised recommendations