Reticuloendothelium Malignancy: Current Role of Imaging

  • Sunit Sebastian
  • Brian C. Lucey
Part of the Cancer Treatment and Research book series (CTAR, volume 143)

The reticuloendothelial system (RES), also known as the mononuclear phagocytic system (MPS), is comprised of lymphoid organs including the bone marrow, liver, spleen, lymph nodes, thymus, microglia of the brain, tonsils as well as MALT (mucosa associated lymphoid tissue), BALT (bronchus-associated lymphoid tissue) and GALT (gut-associated lymphoid tissue). The T-lymphocytes make up 75 percent and the B-lymphocytes constitute 25 percent of the total lymphocytes. The spleen contains both B- and T-lymphocytes. Lymphoid tissue associated with mucosa, bronchus and gut are termed MALT, BALT and GALT, respectively. Tonsils respond to antigens by producing B-lymphocytes.

Since the basic tenets of imaging the reticuloendothelial system essentially remain the same, this chapter will be confined to imaging of the lymph nodes and spleen. Other organ systems (such as liver, thymus etc) will be dealt with elsewhere in this book.

The merits and disadvantages of all imaging modalities will be discussed. Moreover, the increasingly important role of newer imaging techniques such as PET-CT will also be emphasized, especially in the evaluation of post-treatment residual disease.


Positron Emission Tomography Current Role Splenic Cyst Splenic Involvement Splenic Lymphoma 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Vassallo P, Wernecke K, Roos N, Peters PE. Differentiation of benign from malignant superficial lymphadenopathy: the role of high-resolution US. Radiology 1992; 183:215–220.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    DePena CA, Van Tassel P, Lee YY. Lymphoma of the head and neck. Radiol Clin North Am 1990; 28:723–743.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Som PM. Lymph nodes of the neck. Radiology 1987; 165:593–600.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bruneton JN NF. Ultrasonography of the Neck. In: Springer-Verlag, 1987; 81–92.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sakai F, Sone S, Kiyono K, et al. Computed tomography of neck lymph nodes involved with malignant lymphoma: comparison with ultrasound. Radiat Med 1991; 9:203–208.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baatenburg de Jong RJ, Rongen RJ, Lameris JS, Harthoorn M, Verwoerd CD, Knegt P. Metastatic neck disease. Palpation vs ultrasound examination. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1989; 115:689–690.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ho SS, Ahuja AT, Kew J, Metreweli C. Differentiation of lymphadenopathy in different forms of carcinoma with Doppler sonography. Clin Radiol 2000; 55:627–631.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Na DG, Lim HK, Byun HS, Kim HD, Ko YH, Baek JH. Differential diagnosis of cervical lymphadenopathy: usefulness of color Doppler sonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997; 168:1311–1316.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schroder RJ, Maurer J, Hidajat N, et al. [Signal-enhanced color-coded duplex sonography of reactively and metastatically enlarged lymph nodes]. Rofo 1998; 168:57–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tschammler A, Hahn D. Multivariate analysis of the adjustment of the colour duplex unit for the differential diagnosis of lymph node alterations. Eur Radiol 1999; 9:1445–1450.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Giovagnorio F, Galluzzo M, Andreoli C, De CM, David V. Color Doppler sonography in the evaluation of superficial lymphomatous lymph nodes. J Ultrasound Med 2002; 21:403–408.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schulte-Altedorneburg G, Demharter J, Linne R, Droste DW, Bohndorf K, Bucklein W. Does ultrasound contrast agent improve the diagnostic value of colour and power Doppler sonography in superficial lymph node enlargement? Eur J Radiol 2003; 48:252–257.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shirakawa T, Miyamoto Y, Yamagishi J, Fukuda K, Tada S. Color/power Doppler sonographic differential diagnosis of superficial lymphadenopathy: metastasis, malignant lymphoma, and benign process. J Ultrasound Med 2001; 20:525–532.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Barrett T, Choyke PL, Kobayashi H. Imaging of the lymphatic system: new horizons. Contrast Media Mol Imaging 2006; 1:230–245.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nakase K, Yamamoto K, Hiasa A, Tawara I, Yamaguchi M, Shiku H. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound examination of lymph nodes in different types of lymphoma. Cancer Detect Prev 2006; 30:188–191.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Munker R, Stengel A, Stabler A, Hiller E, Brehm G. Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound and computed tomography in the staging of Hodgkin’s disease. Verification by laparotomy in 100 cases. Cancer 1995; 76:1460–1466.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Goerg C, Schwerk WB, Goerg K. Sonography of focal lesions of the spleen. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1991; 156:949–953.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Robertson F, Leander P, Ekberg O. Radiology of the spleen. Eur Radiol 2001; 11:80–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gorg C, Weide R, Schwerk WB. Malignant splenic lymphoma: sonographic patterns, diagnosis and follow-up. Clin Radiol 1997; 52:535–540.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gorg C, Weide R, Schwerk WB. [Ultrasound involvement of the spleen in non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas]. Ultraschall Med 1995; 16:104–108.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ishida H, Konno K, Ishida J, et al. Splenic lymphoma: differentiation from splenic cyst with ultrasonography. Abdom Imaging 2001; 26:529–532.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Catalano O, Sandomenico F, Matarazzo I, Siani A. Contrast-enhanced sonography of the spleen. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005; 184:1150–1156.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lu P. Staging and classification of lymphoma. Semin Nucl Med 2005; 35:160–164.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    North LB, Libshitz HI, Lorigan JG. Thoracic lymphoma. Radiol Clin North Am 1990; 28:745–762.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Greene FL PD, Fleming ID. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. In: Springer-Verlag, 2002; 91–241.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hopper KD, Diehl LF, Cole BA, Lynch JC, Meilstrup JW, McCauslin MA. The significance of necrotic mediastinal lymph nodes on CT in patients with newly diagnosed Hodgkin disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1990; 155:267–270.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Apter S, Avigdor A, Gayer G, Portnoy O, Zissin R, Hertz M. Calcification in lymphoma occurring before therapy: CT features and clinical correlation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002; 178:935–938.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sharma A, Fidias P, Hayman LA, Loomis SL, Taber KH, Aquino SL. Patterns of lymphadenopathy in thoracic malignancies. Radiographics 2004; 24:419–434.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Aquino SL, Chen MY, Kuo WT, Chiles C. The CT appearance of pleural and extrapleural disease in lymphoma. Clin Radiol 1999; 54:647–650.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Byun JH, Ha HK, Kim AY, et al. CT findings in peripheral T-cell lymphoma involving the gastrointestinal tract. Radiology 2003; 227:59–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Guermazi A, Brice P, de Kerviler EE, et al. Extranodal Hodgkin disease: spectrum of disease. Radiographics 2001; 21:161–179.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lewis ER, Caskey CI, Fishman EK. Lymphoma of the lung: CT findings in 31 patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1991; 156:711–714.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Neumann CH, Robert NJ, Canellos G, Rosenthal D. Computed tomography of the abdomen and pelvis in Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1983; 7:846–850.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rademaker J. Hodgkin’s and Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphomas. Radiol Clin North Am 2007; 45:69–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sandrasegaran K, Robinson PJ, Selby P. Staging of lymphoma in adults. Clin Radiol 1994; 49:149–161.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Fishman EK, Kuhlman JE, Jones RJ. CT of lymphoma: spectrum of disease. Radiographics 1991; 11:647–669.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Shirkhoda A, Ros PR, Farah J, Staab EV. Lymphoma of the solid abdominal viscera. Radiol Clin North Am 1990; 28:785–799.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ahmann DL, Kiely JM, Harrison EG, Jr., Payne WS. Malignant lymphoma of the spleen. A review of 49 cases in which the diagnosis was made at splenectomy. Cancer 1966; 19:461–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Giovagnoni A, Giorgi C, Goteri G. Tumors of the spleen. Cancer Imaging 2005; 5:73–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Napoli A, Catalano C, Silecchia G, et al. Laparoscopic splenectomy: multi-detector row CT for preoperative evaluation. Radiology 2004; 232:361–367.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Vinnicombe SJ, Reznek RH. Computerised tomography in the staging of Hodgkin’s disease and Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003; 30 Suppl 1:S42–55.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Dorfman RE, Alpern MB, Gross BH, Sandler MA. Upper abdominal lymph nodes: criteria for normal size determined with CT. Radiology 1991; 180:319–322.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Warburg O. On the origin of cancer cells. Science 1956; 123:309–314.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Rodriguez M, Rehn S, Ahlstrom H, Sundstrom C, Glimelius B. Predicting malignancy grade with PET in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. J Nucl Med 1995; 36:1790–1796.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Schoder H, Noy A, Gonen M, et al. Intensity of 18fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in positron emission tomography distinguishes between indolent and aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23:4643–4651.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Isasi CR, Lu P, Blaufox MD. A meta-analysis of 18F–2-deoxy-2-fluoro-D-glucose positron emission tomography in the staging and restaging of patients with lymphoma. Cancer 2005; 104:1066–1074.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Lang O, Bihl H, Hultenschmidt B, Sautter-Bihl ML. Clinical relevance of positron emission tomography (PET) in treatment control and relapse of Hodgkin’s disease. Strahlenther Onkol 2001; 177:138–144.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Stumpe KD, Urbinelli M, Steinert HC, Glanzmann C, Buck A, von Schulthess GK. Whole-body positron emission tomography using fluorodeoxyglucose for staging of lymphoma: effectiveness and comparison with computed tomography. Eur J Nucl Med 1998; 25:721–728.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Mikosch P, Gallowitsch HJ, Zinke-Cerwenka W, et al. Accuracy of whole-body 18F-FDP-PET for restaging malignant lymphoma. Acta Med Austriaca 2003; 30:41–47.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Rini JN, Leonidas JC, Tomas MB, Palestro CJ. 18F-FDG PET versus CT for evaluating the spleen during initial staging of lymphoma. J Nucl Med 2003; 44:1072–1074.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Rini JN, Manalili EY, Hoffman MA, et al. F-18 FDG versus Ga-67 for detecting splenic involvement in Hodgkin’s disease. Clin Nucl Med 2002; 27:572–577.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Shreve PD, Anzai Y, Wahl RL. Pitfalls in oncologic diagnosis with FDG PET imaging: physiologic and benign variants. Radiographics 1999; 19:61–77; quiz 150–151.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Barrington SF, O’Doherty MJ. Limitations of PET for imaging lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003; 30 Suppl 1:S117–127.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Schaefer NG, Hany TF, Taverna C, et al. Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma and Hodgkin’s disease: coregistered FDG PET and CT at staging and restaging–do we need contrast-enhanced CT? Radiology 2004; 232:823–829.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Raanani P, Shasha Y, Perry C, et al. Is CT scan still necessary for staging in Hodgkin and Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma patients in the PET/CT era? Ann Oncol 2006; 17:117–122.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Allen-Auerbach M, Quon A, Weber WA, et al. Comparison between 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-D-glucose positron emission tomography and positron emission tomography/computed tomography hardware fusion for staging of patients with lymphoma. Mol Imaging Biol 2004; 6:411–416.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Tatsumi M, Cohade C, Nakamoto Y, Fishman EK, Wahl RL. Direct comparison of FDG PET and CT findings in patients with lymphoma: initial experience. Radiology 2005; 237:1038–1045.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Ell PJ. The contribution of PET/CT to improved patient management. Br J Radiol 2006; 79:32–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Hernandez-Maraver D, Hernandez-Navarro F, Gomez-Leon N, et al. Positron emission tomography/computed tomography: diagnostic accuracy in lymphoma. Br J Haematol 2006; 135:293–302.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Antoch G, Freudenberg LS, Egelhof T, et al. Focal tracer uptake: a potential artifact in contrast-enhanced dual-modality PET/CT scans. J Nucl Med 2002; 43:1339–1342.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Antoch G, Jentzen W, Freudenberg LS, et al. Effect of oral contrast agents on computed tomography-based positron emission tomography attenuation correction in dual-modality positron emission tomography/computed tomography imaging. Invest Radiol 2003; 38:784–789.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Beyer T, Antoch G, Bockisch A, Stattaus J. Optimized intravenous contrast administration for diagnostic whole-body 18F-FDG PET/CT. J Nucl Med 2005; 46:429–435.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Yau YY, Chan WS, Tam YM, et al. Application of intravenous contrast in PET/CT: does it really introduce significant attenuation correction error? J Nucl Med 2005; 46:283–291.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Deloar HM, Fujiwara T, Shidahara M, et al. Estimation of absorbed dose for 2-[F-18]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose using whole-body positron emission tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. Eur J Nucl Med 1998; 25:565–574.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Nyman R, Rhen S, Ericsson A, et al. An attempt to characterize malignant lymphoma in spleen, liver and lymph nodes with magnetic resonance imaging. Acta Radiol 1987; 28:527–533.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Hoane BR, Shields AF, Porter BA, Borrow JW. Comparison of initial lymphoma staging using computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. Am J Hematol 1994; 47:100–105.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Hoane BR, Shields AF, Porter BA, Shulman HM. Detection of lymphomatous bone marrow involvement with magnetic resonance imaging. Blood 1991; 78:728–738.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Tesoro-Tess JD, Balzarini L, Ceglia E, Petrillo R, Santoro A, Musumeci R. Magnetic resonance imaging in the initial staging of Hodgkin’s disease and Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma. Eur J Radiol 1991; 12:81–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Gossmann A, Eich HT, Engert A, et al. CT and MR imaging in Hodgkin’s disease–present and future. Eur J Haematol Suppl 2005:83–89.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Rabushka LS, Kawashima A, Fishman EK. Imaging of the spleen: CT with supplemental MR examination. Radiographics 1994; 14:307–332.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Kishimoto K, Koyama T, Kigami Y, et al. Primary splenic malignant lymphoma associated with hepatitis C virus infection. Abdom Imaging 2001; 26:55–58.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    North LB, Wallace S, Lindell MM, Jr., Jing BS, Fuller LM, Allen PK. Lymphography for staging lymphomas: is it still a useful procedure? AJR Am J Roentgenol 1993; 161:867–869.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Fritscher-Ravens A, Mylonaki M, Pantes A, Topalidis T, Thonke F, Swain P. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of focal lesions of the spleen. Am J Gastroenterol 2003; 98:1022–1027.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Silverman SG, Lee BY, Mueller PR, Cibas ES, Seltzer SE. Impact of positive findings at image-guided biopsy of lymphoma on patient care: evaluation of clinical history, needle size, and pathologic findings on biopsy performance. Radiology 1994; 190:759–764.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Gorczyca W, Weisberger J, Liu Z, et al. An approach to diagnosis of T-cell lymphoproliferative disorders by flow cytometry. Cytometry 2002; 50:177–190.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Hoskin PJ. PET in lymphoma: what are the oncologist’s needs? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003; 30 Suppl 1:S37–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Cheson BD, Horning SJ, Coiffier B, et al. Report of an international workshop to standardize response criteria for non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas. NCI Sponsored International Working Group. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17:1244.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Grillo-Lopez AJ, Cheson BD, Horning SJ, et al. Response criteria for NHL: importance of ‘normal’ lymph node size and correlations with response rates. Ann Oncol 2000; 11:399–408.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Prasad SR, Jhaveri KS, Saini S, Hahn PF, Halpern EF, Sumner JE. CT tumor measurement for therapeutic response assessment: comparison of unidimensional, bidimensional, and volumetric techniques initial observations. Radiology 2002; 225:416–419.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Zinzani PL, Zompatori M, Bendandi M, et al. Monitoring bulky mediastinal disease with gallium-67, CT-scan and magnetic resonance imaging in Hodgkin’s disease and high-grade non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Leuk Lymphoma 1996; 22:131–135.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Di Cesare E, Cerone G, Enrici RM, Tombolini V, Anselmo P, Masciocchi C. MRI characterization of residual mediastinal masses in Hodgkin’s disease: long-term follow-up. Magn Reson Imaging 2004; 22:31–38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Freudenberg LS, Antoch G, Schutt P, et al. FDG-PET/CT in re-staging of patients with lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2004; 31:325–329.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Castellucci P, Nanni C, Farsad M, et al. Potential pitfalls of 18F-FDG PET in a large series of patients treated for malignant lymphoma: prevalence and scan interpretation. Nucl Med Commun 2005; 26:689–694.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sunit Sebastian
    • 1
  • Brian C. Lucey
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyEmory University School of MedicineAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyVA Medical CenterBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations