Reply to: “All that glitters is not gold – new reconstruction methods using Deauville criteria for patient reporting”
- 215 Downloads
We thank the Editor-in-Chief for allowing us the opportunity to reply to Barrington et al.  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...
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.
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).
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.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
- 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.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