Is there an optimal method for measuring baseline metabolic tumor volume in diffuse large B cell lymphoma?

  • Anne-Ségolène Cottereau
  • Irene Buvat
  • Salim Kanoun
  • Annibale Versari
  • Olivier Casasnovas
  • Stephane Chauvie
  • Jérôme Clerc
  • Andrea Gallamini
  • Michel Meignan
Letter to the Editor

Dear Sir,

Given the absence of a recognized gold standard for assessing the metabolic tumor volume (MTV) in FDG PET, it is important to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the different methods used in DLBCL.

In their retrospective series of 147 patients, Ylyas et al. [1] tested three different fixed thresholding methods: SUV ≥ 2.5, ≥ 41% of the SUVmax and a liver uptake dependent threshold as suggested in PERCIST. They confirmed the strong prognostic value of baseline MTV, regardless of the method used, consistent with previous findings [2, 3]. These results deserve further comments.

The median MTV reported in this study with the 41% SUVmax method is surprisingly low (165 cm3) with a large difference with the 2.5 method (~590 cm3). Although the population included 70% of advanced stage patients, their median is much lower than values reported in previous studies employing 41% SUVmax method in DLBCL, with medians of 258 cm3 [4], 315 cm3 [5], 320 cm3 [6], and 373 cm3 [7]. Using a...


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Ilyas H, Mikhaeel NG, Dunn JT, Rahman F, Moller H, Smith D, et al. Defining the optimal method for measuring baseline metabolic tumour volume in diffuse large B cell lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018.
  2. 2.
    Kanoun S, Tal I, Berriolo-Riedinger A, Rossi C, Riedinger JM, Vrigneaud JM, et al. Influence of software tool and methodological aspects of total metabolic tumor volume calculation on baseline [18F]FDG PET to predict survival in Hodgkin lymphoma. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0140830. Scholar
  3. 3.
    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. Scholar
  4. 4.
    Toledano MN, Desbordes P, Banjar A, Gardin I, Vera P, Ruminy P, et al. Combination of baseline FDG PET/CT total metabolic tumour volume and gene expression profile have a robust predictive value in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018.
  5. 5.
    Sasanelli M, Meignan M, Haioun C, Berriolo-Riedinger A, Casasnovas RO, Biggi A, et al. Pretherapy metabolic tumour volume is an independent predictor of outcome in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:2017–22. Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cottereau AS, Lanic H, Mareschal S, Meignan M, Vera P, Tilly H, et al. Molecular profile and FDG-PET/CT total metabolic tumor volume improve risk classification at diagnosis for patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2016;22:3801–9. Scholar
  7. 7.
    Casasnovas O, Cottereau ASKS, Oberic L, Thieblemont C, Haioun C, et al. Baseline total metabolic voluem (TMTV0) predicts the outcome of patients with diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) enrolled in the LNH07-3B LYSA trial. Hematol Oncol. 2015;33:100–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kostakoglu L, Martelli M, Sehn LH, Belada D, Carella AM, Chua N, et al. Baseline PET-derived metabolic tumor volume metrics predict progression-free and overall survival in DLBCL after first-line treatment: results from the phase 3 GOYA study. Blood. 2017;130:824.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Niyazi M, Landrock S, Elsner A, Manapov F, Hacker M, Belka C, et al. Automated biological target volume delineation for radiotherapy treatment planning using FDG-PET/CT. Radiat Oncol. 2013;8:180. Scholar
  10. 10.
    Meignan M, Sasanelli M, Casasnovas RO, Luminari S, Fioroni F, Coriani C, et al. Metabolic tumour volumes measured at staging in lymphoma: methodological evaluation on phantom experiments and patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:1113–22. Scholar
  11. 11.
    Soret M, Bacharach SL, Buvat I. Partial-volume effect in PET tumor imaging. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:932–45. Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zijlstra JM, Boellaard R. Baseline PET as prognostic marker for Hodgkin? Blood. 2018;131:3–4. 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. Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anne-Ségolène Cottereau
    • 1
  • Irene Buvat
    • 2
  • Salim Kanoun
    • 3
  • Annibale Versari
    • 4
  • Olivier Casasnovas
    • 5
  • Stephane Chauvie
    • 6
  • Jérôme Clerc
    • 1
  • Andrea Gallamini
    • 7
  • Michel Meignan
    • 8
  1. 1.Department of Nuclear Medicine, Cochin Hospital, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de ParisParis Descartes UniversityParisFrance
  2. 2.Imagerie Moléculaire In Vivo, CEA, InsermUniversity Paris Sud, CNRS, Université Paris SaclayOrsayFrance
  3. 3.Nuclear Medicine Department, Institut Claudius RegaudUniversity Cancer Institute Toulouse OncopoleToulouseFrance
  4. 4.Santa Maria Nuova Hospital-IRCCS Reggio EmiliaReggioItaly
  5. 5.Department of HematologyUniversity Hospital F. Mitterrand and INSERM 1231, CHU DijonDijonFrance
  6. 6.Department of Medical Physics‘Santa Croce e Carle’ HospitalCuneoItaly
  7. 7.Research, Innovation and Statistics DepartmentCentre Antoine-LacassagneNiceFrance
  8. 8.LYSA ImagingCreteilFrance

Personalised recommendations