Interim FDG PET/CT in primary mediastinal diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: really almost useless procedure?

  • Vít Procházka
  • Lenka Henzlová
  • Jaroslav Ptáček
  • Tomáš Papajík
Letter to the Editor


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest


Ethical approval

This article does not describe any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.


  1. 1.
    Lazarovici J, Terroir M, Arfi-Rouche J, Michot JM, Mussot S, Florea V, et al. Poor predictive value of positive interim FDG-PET/CT in primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44(12):2018–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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(5):571–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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. 2018;45(3):412–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Procházka V, Henzlová L, Buriánková E, Prouzová Z, Obr A, Novák M, et al. Prognostic impact of interim and final PET in primary mediastinal large B-Cell lymphoma treated with intensive etoposide-based therapy. Blood. 2014;124(21):1729.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Barrington SF, Kluge R. FDG PET for therapy monitoring in Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphomas. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44(Suppl 1):97–110.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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(Suppl 1):17–31.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Meignan M. Quantitative FDG-PET: a new biomarker in PMBCL. Blood. 2015;126(8):924–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Minamimoto R, Fayad L, Advani R, Vose J, Macapinlac H, Meza J, et al. Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: prospective multicenter comparison of early interim FLT PET/CT versus FDG PET/CT with IHP, EORTC, Deauville, and PERCIST criteria for early therapeutic monitoring. Radiology. 2016;280(1):220–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Hemato-Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and DentistryPalacky UniversityOlomoucCzech Republic
  2. 2.PET Imaging Center, Department of Nuclear Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and DentistryPalacky UniversityOlomoucCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations