Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • View or Listen to JNM Podcast
  • Visit JNM on Facebook
  • Join JNM on LinkedIn
  • Follow JNM on Twitter
  • Subscribe to our RSS feeds
OtherClinical Investigations

Assessment of Lymphoma Therapy Using 18F-FDG PET

Val J. Lowe and Gregory A. Wiseman
Journal of Nuclear Medicine August 2002, 43 (8) 1028-1030;
Val J. Lowe
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Gregory A. Wiseman
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

The evaluation of tumor response during and after cancer therapy using PET is frequently discussed. In the last 10–20 y, most hematologists and oncologists have used CT to assess the response of lymphoma to therapy; however, CT does not consistently distinguish between dividing tumor cells and posttherapy fibrosis. Patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) have positive CT findings in approximately 50% of cases after chemotherapy, and long-term follow-up shows that only 50% or fewer of those with positive CT findings have disease relapse or other evidence of residual tumor (1–5). CT is a poor predictor of clinical outcome after treatment of aggressive NHL, and a posttherapy CT scan positive for NHL does not indicate that the time to progression for that patient will be significantly different from that for a patient with normal CT findings (6–8).

One primary consideration for choosing a test to detect early response to therapy should be the existence of an alternate therapy. Aggressive NHL is potentially curable, with 20%–40% of patients having a “cure” or long-term disease-free intervals, whereas most indolent cases of NHL are not curable with currently available therapies. Early assessment of response to tumor therapy will likely be more important in aggressive lymphoma or, particularly, in predicting lack of response or time to progression. Imaging viable residual tumor in a patient with aggressive NHL not only would alter the management but also could potentially change the prognosis of the patient by allowing earlier use of alternative therapies and discontinuation of therapy that will not lead to a significant tumor response. In addition, early discontinuation of therapy that is not working will avoid the associated toxicity.

Patients not achieving a response from the initial chemotherapy based on cyclophosphamide, hydroxydaunorubicin, vincristine (Oncovin; Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, IN), and prednisone (CHOP) for advanced-stage aggressive NHL are candidates for salvage chemotherapy or autologous bone marrow transplantation. Salvage chemotherapy can induce a long-term response, with a 5%–10% long-term disease-free survival for diffuse, large B-cell NHL (9–11). Autologous bone marrow transplantation performed on patients with aggressive, chemotherapy-responsive NHL at first relapse results in long-term survival for many. Patients who have an initial complete remission from chemotherapy and a later relapse have a better prognosis with autologous bone marrow transplantation than do patients who are resistant to the initial chemotherapy. Autologous bone marrow transplantation has been shown to be superior to salvage chemotherapy at usual doses and leads to long-term disease-free survival in ∼40% of patients whose lymphoma remains chemotherapy sensitive after relapse (12–13).

It is clear that 18F-FDG uptake decreases during therapy in responding tumors and, in this case, lymphoma. Critical issues still need to be resolved about the use of PET for therapeutic assessment. At what point during chemotherapy will PET be useful for directing a new course of therapy if it is believed that a change should or can be made? In concert, at what point will PET show optimal sensitivity and prediction of progression-free survival? Kostakoglu et al. (14) are responding to some of these questions in their article in this issue of The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

The article by Kostakoglu et al. (14) reviews their experience with 18F-FDG PET in lymphoma. They look at the accuracy of detecting lymphoma resistant to treatment regimens of CHOP or CHOP variants (in the case of new NHL, 10 patients) or of dexamethasone, ifosfamide, cisplatin, and etoposide (in the case of treatment for NHL relapse, 7 patients). For Hodgkin’s disease (13 patients) the chemotherapy used was adriamycin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine. The investigation used a dual-head gamma camera with attenuation correction for 18F-FDG imaging. The results show accurate prediction by coincidence PET after 1 cycle of chemotherapy but poor sensitivity for resistant disease (or disease that will relapse) after the last cycle. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for first cycle versus completion of chemotherapy were 82%, 85%, and 97%, respectively, versus 46%, 90%, and 70%, respectively. These results are similar to others for early chemotherapy assessment but dramatically lower for posttherapy assessment (13,15–17).

We know that 18F-FDG accumulation in lymphoma diminishes as successful therapy progresses. In a study by Romer et al. (17) on a group of 11 patients with newly diagnosed NHL, 18F-FDG uptake was measured by dedicated PET at 7 d (after 1 course) and 42 d (after 2 courses) after the start of chemotherapy. PET at 42 d was superior to PET at 7 d in the prediction of long-term outcome. The authors suggested that evaluation of tumor 18F-FDG uptake at as early as 7 d can predict the primary outcome to chemotherapy. 18F-FDG uptake parameters at days 7 and 42 were correlated with long-term clinical outcome. Seven days after the initiation of chemotherapy, the parameters of tumor 18F-FDG uptake decreased by 60% of initial values for standardized uptake value (SUV[max]) and by 67% for metabolic rate for 18F-FDG (MRFDG). From day 7 to day 42, all lesions exhibited a further decrease of tracer uptake: 42% for SUV[max] and 71% for MRFDG. The total decrease from baseline to day 42 was 79% for SUV[max] and 89% for MRFDG. Other authors have shown PET to have good sensitivity for detecting resistant disease after the completion of chemotherapy. In a study by Spaepen et al. (16) on 93 patients with NHL undergoing first-line chemotherapy, 18F-FDG PET had a 70% sensitivity for detecting residual disease after the completion of chemotherapy (6–8 courses). Progression-free survival was shorter for patients who had persistent 18F-FDG uptake. All patients with persistent uptake did have disease relapse. This study was performed using a dedicated, full-ring PET scanner. Also, in a group of 37 Hodgkin’s disease patients, De Wit et al. (13) showed that PET undertaken at the completion of chemotherapy was 91% sensitive for predicting disease relapse.

The data the authors analyzed must be considered in light of a few important variables that may explain the differences between their results and other published data. The trial patients had different diseases, were being treated differently, and were at different points in their treatment. It is difficult to analyze the patients separately as, for example, an initial disease group or a relapse group, because the groups become very small. It is also difficult to view these data with relapse and initial-diagnosis patients lumped together, because the disease response characteristics may be different. This difficulty makes the data somewhat problematic. Also, there must certainly have been some lymphoma patients who were seen at that center but were not enrolled in the trial. The trial was open for 3.5 y, and only 30 consecutive patients were enrolled. One would hope that during such a period a large referral center could enroll many more patients. A larger enrollment would give the authors data that could be more easily separated into subgroups. The low enrollment also raises the question of referral bias and the possibility that the trial may have enrolled a higher percentage of patients with advanced, resistant disease.

Another issue that needs to be addressed about the data is the use of coincidence PET for the detection of subtle disease persistence or resistance, especially after therapy. The disease sensitivity of dedicated PET scanners is well known to surpass that of coincidence PET scanners, and this superiority may be another circumstance in which the difference can be limiting (18). The authors’ scanner does use attenuation correction, which improves the performance of the scanner but not to a level equivalent to that of dedicated PET. The article reports posttherapy coincidence PET to have a sensitivity of 46% for disease that relapses, compared with a sensitivity of 70%–91% for dedicated PET (13,15,16). If we assume that the most probable time for resistant disease to be at its smallest volume is after therapy, the most sensitive PET imaging method would be optimal at that time. This may explain the discrepancy between the results of Kostakoglu et al. (14) and other reports.

Management of therapy using PET is a topic of discussion in almost all oncology settings, in addition to the setting of lymphoma. Large, prospective trials with consistent patient groups are needed to answer questions on the predictive nature of PET for therapy assessment. The article by Kostakoglu et al. (14) does confirm that early therapeutic assessment of lymphoma treatment using coincidence PET can predict which patients will respond. Small, heterogeneous patient groups make the study somewhat problematic, however, relative to its generalizability and statistical power. The study is likewise not indicative of, or consistent with, the accuracy of dedicated PET of the posttherapeutic lymphoma patient. The article gives us an early look at therapeutic assessment using coincidence PET and may best be served by a direct comparison with dedicated PET before coincidence PET can be considered to be of limited utility for assessing the response of lymphoma after chemotherapy.

Footnotes

  • Received Apr. 15, 2002; revision accepted Apr. 19, 2002.

    For correspondence or reprints contact: Val J. Lowe, MD, PET Imaging, Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, CH1-223, 200 First St. SW, Rochester, MN 55905.

    E-mail: vlowe{at}mayo.edu

REFERENCES

  1. ↵
    Kaplan WD, Jochelson MS, Herman TS, et al. Gallium-67 imaging: a predictor of residual tumor viability and clinical outcome in patients with diffuse large-cell lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 1990;8:1966–1970.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  2. Front D, Ben-Haim S, Israel O, et al. Lymphoma: predictive value of Ga-67 scintigraphy after treatment. Radiology. 1992;182:359–363.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  3. Front D, Bar-Shalom R, Mor M, et al. Aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma: early prediction of outcome with 67Ga scintigraphy. Radiology. 2000;214:253–257.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  4. Front D, Israel O. The role of Ga-67 scintigraphy in evaluating the results of therapy of lymphoma patients. Semin Nucl Med. 1995;25:60–71.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    Jerusalem G, Beguin Y, Fassotte MF, et al. Whole-body positron emission tomography using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose for posttreatment evaluation in Hodgkin’s disease and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma has higher diagnostic and prognostic value than classical computed tomography scan imaging. Blood. 1999;94:429–433.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    Vose JM, Bierman PJ, Anderson JR, et al. Single-photon emission computed tomography gallium imaging versus computed tomography: predictive value in patients undergoing high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem-cell transplantation for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 1996;14:2473–2479.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  7. Janicek M, Kaplan W, Neuberg D, et al. Early restaging gallium scans predict outcome in poor-prognosis patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma treated with high-dose CHOP chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 1997;15:1631–1637.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  8. ↵
    Gasparini M, Bombardieri E, Castellani M, et al. Gallium-67 scintigraphy evaluation of therapy in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. J Nucl Med. 1998;39:1586–1590.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    Cabanillas F, Hagemeister FB, McLaughlin P, et al. Results of MIME salvage regimen for recurrent or refractory lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 1987;5:407–412.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  10. Press OW, Livingston R, Mortimer J, Collins C, Appelbaum F. Treatment of relapsed non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas with dexamethasone, high-dose cytarabine, and cisplatin before marrow transplantation. J Clin Oncol. 1991;9:423–431.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  11. ↵
    Velasquez WS, Cabanillas F, Salvador P, et al. Effective salvage therapy for lymphoma with cisplatin in combination with high-dose Ara-C and dexamethasone (DHAP). Blood. 1988;71:117–122.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    Hagenbeek A, Philip T, Bron D, et al. Autologous stem cell transplantation in aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Recent Results Cancer Res. 1998;144:15–26.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  13. ↵
    de Wit M, Bohuslavizki KH, Buchert R, Bumann D, Clausen M, Hossfeld DK. 18FDG-PET following treatment as valid predictor for disease-free survival in Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Ann Oncol. 2001;12:29–37.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. ↵
    Kostakoglu L, Coleman M, Leonard JP, Kuji I, Zoe H, Goldsmith SJ. PET predicts prognosis after 1 cycle of chemotherapy in aggressive lymphoma and Hodgkin’s disease. J Nucl Med. 2002;43:1018–1027.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. ↵
    Jerusalem G, Beguin Y, Fassotte MF, et al. Persistent tumor 18F-FDG uptake after a few cycles of polychemotherapy is predictive of treatment failure in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Haematologica. 2000;85:613–618.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. ↵
    Spaepen K, Stroobants S, Dupont P, et al. 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. 2001;19:414–419.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. ↵
    Romer W, Hanauske AR, Ziegler S, et al. Positron emission tomography in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: assessment of chemotherapy with fluorodeoxyglucose. Blood. 1998;91:4464–4471.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. ↵
    Shreve PD, Steventon RS, Deters EC, Kison PV, Gross MD, Wahl RL. Oncologic diagnosis with 2-[fluorine-18] fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose imaging: dual-head coincidence gamma camera versus positron emission tomographic scanner. Radiology. 1998;207:431–437.
    OpenUrlPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine: 43 (8)
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 43, Issue 8
August 1, 2002
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Assessment of Lymphoma Therapy Using 18F-FDG PET
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Nuclear Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Nuclear Medicine web site.
Citation Tools
Assessment of Lymphoma Therapy Using 18F-FDG PET
Val J. Lowe, Gregory A. Wiseman
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Aug 2002, 43 (8) 1028-1030;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Assessment of Lymphoma Therapy Using 18F-FDG PET
Val J. Lowe, Gregory A. Wiseman
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Aug 2002, 43 (8) 1028-1030;
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Feasibility of Ultra-Low-Activity 18F-FDG PET/CT Imaging Using a Long–Axial-Field-of-View PET/CT System
  • Cardiac Presynaptic Sympathetic Nervous Function Evaluated by Cardiac PET in Patients with Chronotropic Incompetence Without Heart Failure
  • Validation and Evaluation of a Vendor-Provided Head Motion Correction Algorithm on the uMI Panorama PET/CT System
Show more Invited Commentary

Similar Articles

SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire