Clinical Application of 18F-FDG PET/CT in Lymphoma

  • Xiaoli LanEmail author
  • Altine Bouhari
  • Khamis Hassan Bakari
  • Alexandre Niyonkuru


Lymphoma is one of the medical diseases which has more than 80% successful treatment, and it is one of the frequent carcinogenic healthcare conditions. The treatment efficacy of lymphoma is rendered possible by combination therapy such as chemotherapy with radiotherapy or sometimes chemotherapy alone. Thomas Hodgkin first introduced this disease in 1832 by reviewing seven cases. The immunohistochemistry (IHC) examination of these cases lately revealed that two different types of lymphoma were actually described in his paper. By today’s standard techniques, most cases described in his original paper were “Hodgkin’s lymphomas (HL),” while only one case was recognized as “non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma” (NHL) [1].


  1. 1.
    Poston JN (1999) Positive Leu-MI immuno-histochemistry and diagnosis of the lymphoma cases described by Hodgkin in 1832. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol 7:6–8Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Horner MJ, Ries LA, Krapcho M, Neyman N, Aminou R, Howlader N, Altekruse SF, Feuer EJ, Huang L, Mariotto A, Miller BA, Lewis DR, Eisner MP, Stinchcomb DG, Edwards BK (eds) (2009) SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2006. National Cancer Institute, Bethesda. based on November 2008 SEER data submission, posted to the SEER web site
  3. 3.
    Hutchings M, Loft A, Hansen M et al (2006) Different histopathological subtypes of Hodgkin lymphoma show significantly different levels of FDG uptake. Hematol Oncol 24(3):146–150PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Döbert N, Menzel C, Hamscho N et al (2004) Atypical thoracic and supraclavicular FDG-uptake in patients with Hodgkin’s and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 48(1):33–38PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hoffmann M, Kletter K, Diemling M et al (1999) Positron emission tomography with fluorine-18-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (F18-FDG) does not visualize extranodal B-cell lymphoma of the mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT)-type. Ann Oncol 10:1185–1189PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Elstrom R (2003) Utility of FDG-PET scanning in lymphoma by WHO classification. Blood 101(10):3875–3876PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Weiler-Sagie M, Bushelev O, Epelbaum R et al (2010) 18F-FDG avidity in lymphoma readdressed: a study of 766 patients. J Nucl Med 51(1):25–30PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schoder H, Noy A, Gonen M et al (2005) Intensity of 18fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in positron emission tomography distinguishes between indolent and aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 23(21):4643–4651PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jerusalem G, Beguin Y (2006) The place of positron emission tomography imaging in the management of patients with malignant lymphoma. Haematologica 91(4):442–444PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Isasi CR, Lu P, Blaufox MD (2005) A meta-analysis of 18F-2-deoxy-2-fluro-D-glucose positron emission tomography in the staging and restaging of patients with lymphoma. Cancer 104(5):1066–1074PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    De Jong PA, van Ufford HM, Baarslag HJ et al (2009) CT and 18F-FDG PET for noninvasive detection of splenic involvement in patients with malignant lymphoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 192(3):745–753PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Karunanithi S, Sharma P, Roy SG et al (2014) Use of 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging for evaluation of patients with primary splenic lymphoma. Clin Nucl Med 39(9):772–776PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chang CC, Cho SF, Chen YW et al (2012) SUV on dual-phase FDG PET/CT correlates with the Ki-67 proliferation index in patients with newly diagnosed non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Clin Nucl Med 37:e189–e195PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hwang JW, Jee SR, Lee SH et al (2016) Efficacy of positron emission tomography/computed tomography in gastric mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue lymphoma. Korean J Gastroenterol 67:183–188PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hirose Y, Kaida H, Ishibashi M et al (2012) Comparison between endoscopic macroscopic classification and F-18 FDG PET findings in gastric mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue lymphoma patients. Clin Nucl Med 37:152–157PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Beal KP, Yeung HW, Yahalom J (2005) FDG-PET scanning for detection and staging of extranodal marginal zone lymphomas of the MALT type: a report of 42 cases. Ann Oncol 16:473–480PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pelosi E, Penna D, Douroukas A et al (2011) Bone marrow disease detection with FDG-PET/CT and bone marrow biopsy during the staging of malignant lymphoma: results from a large multicenter study. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 55:469–475PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Adams HJ, Kwe TC, Keizer B et al (2014) Systemic review and meta-analysis on the diagnostic performance of FDG-PET/CT in detecting bone marrow involvement in newly diagnosed Hodgkin lymphoma: is bone marrow biopsy still necessary? Ann Oncol 25:921–927PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hoffman JM, Waskin HA, Schifter T et al (1993) FDG-PET in differentiating lymphoma from nonmalignant central nervous system lesions in patients with AIDS. J Nucl Med 34(4):567–575PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Makino K, Hirai T, Nakamura H et al (2011) Does adding FDG-PET to MRI improve the differentiation between primary cerebral lymphoma and glioblastoma? Observer performance study. Ann Nucl Med 25(6):432–438PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rosenberg SA (1996) Report of the committee on the staging of Hodgkin’s disease. Cancer Res 26:1310Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rosenberg SA, Boiron M, DeVita VT Jr et al (1971) Report of the committee on Hodgkin’s disease staging procedures. Cancer Res 31:1862–1863PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Swerdlow SH, International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization (2008) WHO classification of tumours of haematopoietic and lymphoid tissues. World Health Organization of Tumours 2, 4th edn. International Agency for Research on Cancer. ISBN 9789283224310Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Canova F, Marino D, Trentin C et al (2011) Intrathecal chemotherapy in lymphomatous meningitis. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 79(2):127–134PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Seam P, Juweid ME, Cheson BD (2007) The role of FDG-PET scans in patients with lymphoma. Blood 110:3507–3516PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schaefer NG, Hany TF, Tavena C et al (2004) Non-Hodgkin lymphoma and Hodgkin disease: coregistered FDG PET and CT at staging and restaging: do we need contrast-enhanced CT. Radiology 232:823–829PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kwee TC, Kwee RM, Nievelstein RA (2008) Imaging in staging of malignant lymphoma: a systematic review. Blood 111:504–516PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mittal BR, Manohar K, Malhotra P et al (2011) Can flourodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography avoid negative iliac crest biopsies in evaluation of marrow involvement by lymphoma at time of initial staging? Leuk Lymphoma 52:2111–2116PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rodriguez-Vigil Junco B, Gomez Leon N et al (2011) Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma staging: a prospective study of the value of positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) versus PET and CT. Med Clin 137:383–389Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Albano D, Giubbini R, Bertagna F (2016) 18F-FDG PET/CT and primary hepatic MALT: a case series. Abdom Radiol (NY) 41(10):1956–1959Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Treglia G, Zucca E, Sadeghi R et al (2015) Detection rate of fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in patients with marginal zone lymphoma of MALT type: a meta-analysis. Hematol Oncol 33:113–124PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Albano D, Bertoli M, Ferro P et al (2017) 18F-FDG EPT/CT in gastric MALT lymphoma: a bicentric experience. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 44(4):589–597PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kumar R, Xiu Y, Zhuang HM et al (2006) 18F-flourodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography in evaluation of primary cutaneous lymphoma. Br J Dermatol 155(2):357–363PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Cheson BD, Horning SJ, Coiffier B et al (1999) Report of an International Workshop to standardize response criteria for non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas. J Clin Oncol 17(4):1244PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Grillo-López AJ, Cheson BD, Horning SJ et al (2000) Response criteria for NHL: importance of “normal” lymph node size and correlations with response rates. Ann Oncol 11(4):399–408PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Spaepen K, Stroobants S, Dupont P et al (2001) Prognostic value of positron emission tomography (PET) with fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose ([18F] FDG) after first-line chemotherapy in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: is [18F] FDG-PET a valid alternative to conventional diagnostic methods? J Clin Oncol 19(2):414–419PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Juweid ME, Stroobants S, Hoekstra OS et al (2007) Use of positron emission tomography for response assessment of lymphoma: consensus recommendations of the Imaging Subcommittee of the International Harmonization Project in Lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 25(5):571–578PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Barrington SF, Qian W, Somer EJ et al (2010) Concordance between four European centres of PET reporting criteria designed for use in multicenter trials in Hodgkin lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 37(10):1824–1833PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Meignan M, Gallamini A, Haioun C (2009) Report on the first international workshop on interim-PET scan in lymphoma. Leuk Lymphoma 50(8):1257–1260PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Le Roux PY, Gastinne T, Le Gouill S et al (2011) Prognostic value of interim FDG PET/CT in Hodgkin’s lymphoma patients treated with interim response adapted strategy: comparison of International Harmonization Project (IHP), Gallamini and London criteria. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 38:1064–1071PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Bourguet P, Blanc-Vincent MP, Boneu A et al (2003) Summary of the standards, options and recommendations for the use of positron emission tomography with 2-[18F] fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG-PET scanning) in oncology. Br J Cancer 89(Suppl 1):S84–S91PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Annunziata S, Cuccaro A, Calcagni ML et al (2016) Interim FDG-PET/CT in Hodgkin lymphoma: the prognostic role of the ratio between target lesion and liver SUVmax (rPET). Ann Nucl Med 30:588–592PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Hutchings M, Loft A, Hansen M et al (2006) FDG-PET after two cycles of chemotherapy Predicts treatment failure and progression-free survival in Hodgkin lymphoma. Blood 107:52–59PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Zinzani PL, Tani M, Fanti S et al (2006) Early positron emission tomography (PET) restaging: a predictive final response in Hodgkin’s disease patients. Ann Oncol 17:1296–1300PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kostakoglu L, Goldsmith SJ, Leonard JP et al (2006) FDG-PET after 1 cycle of therapy predicts outcome in diffuse large cell lymphoma and classic Hodgkin disease. Cancer 107:2678–2687PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Hutchings M, Mikhaeel NG, Fields PA, Nunan T, Timothy AR (2005) Prognostic value of interim FDG-PET after two or three cycles of chemotherapy in Hodgkin lymphoma. Ann Oncol 16:1160–1168PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. and Shanghai Jiao Tong University Press 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xiaoli Lan
    • 1
    Email author
  • Altine Bouhari
    • 1
  • Khamis Hassan Bakari
    • 1
  • Alexandre Niyonkuru
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Nuclear MedicineUnion Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and TechnologyWuhanP. R. China

Personalised recommendations