Lymphoma: Management Using PET/CT

  • Niklaus G. Schaefer


[18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) is considered the standard imaging modality in Hodgkin’s disease and aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. In the European Society of Medical Oncology guidelines, FDGPET/CT is strongly recommended for staging and restaging Hodgkin’s disease and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma


Follicular Lymphoma Bone Marrow Biopsy Salvage Chemotherapy Bone Marrow Infiltration Standard Imaging Modality 
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.


  1. 2.
    Hutchings M, Loft A, Hansen M et al (2006) Positron emission tomography with or without computed tomography in the primary staging of Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Haematologica 91:482–489.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 3.
    Pelosi E, Pregno P, Penna D et al (2008) Role of whole body [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) and conventional techniques in the staging of patients with Hodgkin and aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Radiol Med 113:578–590.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 4.
    Bangerter M, Moog F, Buchmann I et al (1998) Whole-body 2-[18F]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) for accurate staging of Hodgkin’s disease. Ann Oncol 9:1117–1122.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 5.
    Rigacci L, Vitolo U, Nassi L et al (2007) Positron emission tomography in the staging of patients with Hodgkin’s lymphoma: a prospective multicentric study by the Intergruppo Italiano Linfomi. Ann Hematol 86:897–903.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 6.
    Shipp MA, Harrington DP, Anderson JR et al (1993) Development of a predictive model for aggressive lymphoma: The International Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Prognostic Factors Project. N Engl J Med 329:987–994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 7.
    Hasenclever D, Diehl V (1998) A prognostic score for advanced Hodgkin’s disease: International Prognostic Factors Project on advanced Hodgkin’s disease. N Engl J Med 339:1506–1514.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 8.
    Spaepen K, Stroobants S, Dupont P et al (2002) Early restaging positron emission tomography with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose predicts outcome in patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Ann Oncol 13:1356–1363.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 9.
    Haioun C, Itti E, Rahmouni A et al (2005) [18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) in aggressive lymphoma: an early prognostic tool for predicting patient outcome. Blood 106:1376–1381.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 10.
    Mikhaeel NG, Hutchings M, Fields PA et al (2005) FDG-PET after two to three cycles of chemotherapy predicts progression-free and overall survival in highgrade non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Ann Oncol 16:1514–1523.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 11.
    Safar V, Dupuis J, Jardin F et al (2009) Early 18 fluourodeoxyglucose PET scan as a prognostic tool in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients treated with an anthracycline-based chemotherapy plus rituximab. Blood 114:45.Google Scholar
  11. 12.
    Cashen A, Dehdashti F, Luo J et al (2008) Poor predictive value of FDG-PET/CT performed after 2 cycles of R-CHOP in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLCL). Blood 112:144.Google Scholar
  12. 13.
    Gallamini A, Hutchings M, Rigacci L et al (2007) Early interim 2-[18F]fluoro-2-D-glucose positron emission tomography is prognostically superior to international prognostic score in advanced stage Hodgkin’s lymphoma: a report from a joint Italian-Danish study. J Clin Oncol 25:3746–3752.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 14.
    Cerci JJ, Pracchia LF, Linardi CCG et al (2010) 18F-FDG PET after 2 cycles of ABVD predicts eventfree survival in early and advanced Hodgkin lymphoma. J Nucl Med 51:1337–1343.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 15.
    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 19:414–419.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 16.
    Engert A, Kobe C, Markova J et al (2010) Assessment of residual bulky tumor using FDG-PET in patients with advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma after completion of chemotherapy: final report of the GHSG HD15 trial. Blood 116:336.Google Scholar
  16. 17.
    Cerci JJ, Trindade E, Pracchia LF et al (2010) Cost effectiveness of positron emission tomography in patients with Hodgkin’s lymphoma in unconfirmed complete remission or partial remission after firstline therapy. J Clin Oncol 28:1415–1421.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 18.
    Zinzani PL, Stefoni V, Tani M et al (2009) The role of FDGPET scan in the follow-up of lymphoma: experience on 421 patients. J Clin Oncol 27:1781–1787.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 19.
    Petrausch U, Samaras P, Haile SR et al (2010) Risk-adapted FDG-PET/CT-based follow-up in patients with diffuse large Bcell lymphoma after firstline therapy. Ann Oncol 21:1694–1698.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 20.
    Petrausch U, Samaras P, Veit-Haibach P et al (2010) Hodgkin’s lymphoma in remission afer first-line therapy: which patients need FDG-PET/CT for follow-up? Ann Oncol 21:1053–1057.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 21.
    Spaepen K, Stroobants S, Dupont P et al (2003) Prognostic value of pretransplantation positron emission tomography using fluorine 18-fluorodeoxyglucose in patients with aggressive lymphoma treated with high-dose chemotherapy and stem cell transplantation. Blood 102:53–59.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 22.
    Lambert JR, Bomanji JB, Peggs KS et al (2010) Prognostic role of PET scanning before and after reduced-intensity allogeneic stem cell transplantation for lymphoma. Blood 115:2763–2768.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 23.
    Lin C, Itti E, Haioun C et al (2007) Early 18F-FDG PET for prediction of prognosis in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: SUV-based assessment versus visual analysis. J Nucl Med 48:1626–1632.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 24.
    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 17:1244–1253.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 25.
    Cheson BD, Pfistner B, Juweid ME et al (2007) Revised response criteria for malignant lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 25:579–586.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 26.
    Dupuis J, Itti E, Rahmouni A et al (2009) Response assessment after an inductive CHOP or CHOP-like regimen with or without rituximab in 103 patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: integrating 18fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography to the International Workshop Criteria. Ann Oncol 20:503–507.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Niklaus G. Schaefer
    • 1
  1. 1.Medical Oncology & Nuclear MedicineZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations