JNM
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kasamon, Y. L.
Right arrow Articles by Wahl, R. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kasamon, Y. L.
Right arrow Articles by Wahl, R. L.
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Vol. 48 No. 1 (Suppl) 19S-27S
© 2007 by Society of Nuclear Medicine

Integrating PET and PET/CT into the Risk-Adapted Therapy of Lymphoma

Yvette L. Kasamon1,2, Richard J. Jones1 and Richard L. Wahl1,3

1 Department of Oncology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland; 2 Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland; and 3 Division of Nuclear Medicine, The Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland

Correspondence: For correspondence or reprints contact: Richard L. Wahl, MD, 601 N. Caroline St., Room 3223A, Baltimore, MD 21287. E-mail: rwahl{at}jhmi.edu

Imaging with 18F-FDG PET is increasingly accepted as a valuable tool for lymphoma management. A recent shift in the use of PET and PET/CT in medical practice has become evident. We selected aggressive lymphomas as a platform for the discussion of these imaging modalities in oncology patients and the resulting management questions. Methods: On the basis of our clinical experience and a review of the literature, we evaluated the emerging role of 18F-FDG PET in staging, response assessment, risk stratification, and tailored therapy. We explored the biologic meaning of true-positive or true-negative PET results in assessing tumor killing and the implications for risk-adapted therapy of lymphoma. Results: PET/CT improves the accuracy of staging and response assessment over that of conventional anatomic imaging. The strong prognostic value of PET for aggressive lymphomas is established, whether the imaging is performed at the end of therapy or after only a few cycles of chemotherapy. How to modify therapy on the basis of PET results is not yet established, although it is clear that high-risk patient subsets can be reliably identified. Conclusion: PET/CT improves the accuracy of staging and response assessment over that of CT alone. A negative midtreatment PET result does not indicate the absence of a viable tumor or that therapy can be abbreviated or reduced in intensity. Similarly, a positive PET result does not necessarily indicate a viable tumor or that extending or intensifying treatment will benefit the patient. In assessing response, it is possible that prognosis rests not only on whether the PET result is positive or negative but also on the intensity of the signal. Although the prognostic value of PET for lymphoma is now clear, how to tailor therapy accordingly is a separate matter that requires further investigation.

Key Words: PET • PET/CT • lymphoma • prognosis • response

COPYRIGHT © 2006 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine, Inc.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
JNMHome page
R. L. Wahl, H. Jacene, Y. Kasamon, and M. A. Lodge
From RECIST to PERCIST: Evolving Considerations for PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors
J. Nucl. Med., May 1, 2009; 50(Suppl_1): 122S - 150S.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JNMHome page
E. Itti, C. Lin, J. Dupuis, G. Paone, D. Capacchione, A. Rahmouni, C. Haioun, and M. Meignan
Prognostic Value of Interim 18F-FDG PET in Patients with Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma: SUV-Based Assessment at 4 Cycles of Chemotherapy
J. Nucl. Med., April 1, 2009; 50(4): 527 - 533.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JNMHome page
C. Plathow and W. A. Weber
Tumor Cell Metabolism Imaging
J. Nucl. Med., June 1, 2008; 49(Suppl_2): 43S - 63S.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JNMHome page
W. A. Weber
18F-FDG PET in Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma: Qualitative or Quantitative?
J. Nucl. Med., October 1, 2007; 48(10): 1580 - 1582.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JNMHome page
C. Lin, E. Itti, C. Haioun, Y. Petegnief, A. Luciani, J. Dupuis, G. Paone, J.-N. Talbot, A. Rahmouni, and M. Meignan
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., October 1, 2007; 48(10): 1626 - 1632.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JNMHome page
J. Czernin and H. R. Schelbert
Introduction
J. Nucl. Med., January 1, 2007; 48(1_suppl): 2S - 3S.
[Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE TECHNOLOGY THE JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE
Copyright © 2007 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine.