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
Research ArticleClinical Investigation

18F-FDG PET Improves Baseline Clinical Predictors of Response in Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma: The HOVON-84 Study

Coreline N. Burggraaff, Jakoba J. Eertink, Pieternella J. Lugtenburg, Otto S. Hoekstra, Anne I.J. Arens, Bart de Keizer, Martijn W. Heymans, Bronno van der Holt, Sanne E. Wiegers, Simone Pieplenbosch, Ronald Boellaard, Henrica C.W. de Vet, Josée M. Zijlstra and on behalf of the HOVON Imaging Working Group and the HOVON Lymphoma Working Group
Journal of Nuclear Medicine July 2022, 63 (7) 1001-1007; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.121.262205
Coreline N. Burggraaff
1Department of Hematology, Amsterdam UMC, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jakoba J. Eertink
1Department of Hematology, Amsterdam UMC, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Pieternella J. Lugtenburg
2Department of Hematology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Otto S. Hoekstra
3Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Anne I.J. Arens
4Department of Radiology, Nuclear Medicine, and Anatomy, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Bart de Keizer
5Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Martijn W. Heymans
6Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Bronno van der Holt
7Department of Hematology, HOVON Data Center, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sanne E. Wiegers
1Department of Hematology, Amsterdam UMC, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Simone Pieplenbosch
1Department of Hematology, Amsterdam UMC, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ronald Boellaard
3Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Henrica C.W. de Vet
6Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Josée M. Zijlstra
1Department of Hematology, Amsterdam UMC, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Visual Abstract

Figure
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint

Abstract

We aimed to determine the added value of baseline metabolic tumor volume (MTV) and interim PET (I-PET) to the age-adjusted international prognostic index (aaIPI) to predict 2-y progression-free survival (PFS) in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Secondary objectives were to investigate optimal I-PET response criteria (using Deauville score [DS] or quantitative change in SUVmax [ΔSUVmax] between baseline and I-PET4 [observational I-PET scans after 4 cycles of rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone administered in 2-wk intervals with intensified rituximab in the first 4 cycles [R(R)-CHOP14]). Methods: I-PET4 scans in the HOVON-84 (Hemato-Oncologie voor Volwassenen Nederland [Haemato Oncology Foundation for Adults in the Netherlands]) randomized clinical trial (EudraCT 2006-005174-42) were centrally reviewed using DS (cutoff, 4–5). Additionally, ΔSUVmax (prespecified cutoff, 70%) and baseline MTV were measured. Multivariable hazard ratio (HR), positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were obtained for 2-y PFS. Results: In total, 513 I-PET4 scans were reviewed according to DS, and ΔSUVmax and baseline MTV were available for 367 and 296 patients. The NPV of I-PET ranged between 82% and 86% for all PET response criteria. Univariate HR and PPV were better for ΔSUVmax (4.8% and 53%, respectively) than for DS (3.1% and 38%, respectively). aaIPI and ΔSUVmax independently predicted 2-y PFS (HR, 3.2 and 5.0, respectively); adding MTV brought about a slight improvement. Low or low-intermediate aaIPI combined with a ΔSUVmax of more than 70% (37% of patients) yielded an NPV of 93%, and the combination of high-intermediate or high aaIPI and a ΔSUVmax of 70% or less yielded a PPV of 65%. Conclusion: In this study on diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, I-PET after 4 cycles of R(R)-CHOP14 added predictive value to aaIPI for 2-y PFS, and both were independent response biomarkers in a multivariable Cox model. We externally validated that ΔSUVmax outperformed DS in 2-y PFS prediction.

  • DLBCL
  • PET
  • Deauville score
  • ΔSUVmax
  • metabolic tumor volume

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most common subtype of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, characterized by an aggressive clinical course. Standard first-line treatment consists of rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) generally administered at 2-wk (R-CHOP14) or 3-wk (R-CHOP21) intervals.

No significant benefits were shown for R-CHOP14 versus R-CHOP21 in 2 large randomized clinical trials (1,2). Approximately 25%–40% of DLBCL patients experience relapse or progression in the first years after diagnosis. This problem underlines the need for early stratification between good and poor responders (3,4). An early switch to second-line treatment in poor responders might improve patient outcomes.

The international prognostic index (IPI) and age-adjusted IPI (aaIPI), both consisting of baseline clinical characteristics, have retained prognostic value after the introduction of rituximab (5). However, these prognostic indices are not widely used for individual treatment adaptation except for research purposes (6), do not inform about chemosensitivity, and are unable to identify a subgroup with survival clearly below 50%. Therefore, a powerful biomarker (e.g., imaging characteristics during treatment reflecting chemosensitivity) of early response is needed. Recently, measurement of baseline metabolic tumor volume (MTV) was reported to have prognostic value in DLBCL and was suggested as an alternative to IPI (7,8). Combining MTV with early response assessment at 18F-FDG interim PET (I-PET) further improved prediction of progression-free survival (PFS) (7,8). Several operationalizations of I-PET response criteria have been proposed, such as the visual 5-point Deauville score (DS, with various possible cutoffs) (9) and quantitative changes in 18F-FDG uptake between baseline and I-PET (10,11).

In the HOVON-84 study (Hemato-Oncologie voor Volwassenen Nederland [Haemato Oncology Foundation for Adults in the Netherlands]), DLBCL patients were randomized between R-CHOP14 and RR-CHOP14 (R-CHOP14 with intensified rituximab in the first 4 cycles) (12). In both arms, observational I-PET was performed after 4 cycles (I-PET4). To our knowledge, this was the first DLBCL randomized clinical trial in which I-PET4 results did not lead to treatment modification, which enables examination of its predictive value.

Our primary objective was to use prespecified cutoffs and methodologies from previous DLBCL studies to validate the potential added predictive value of baseline MTV and I-PET4 response to baseline clinical characteristics (aaIPI) for 2-y PFS in DLBCL in an independent study. A secondary objective was to determine the optimal I-PET4 response criteria.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study Population

Newly diagnosed DLBCL patients included in the HOVON-84 NHL study (EudraCT2006-005174-42, NTR1014) with I-PET4 were eligible. For this analysis, we combined the R-CHOP14 and RR-CHOP14 study arms, as there were no statistically significant outcome differences between the arms (12). Randomization was stratified for aaIPI score. The main eligibility criteria of the clinical study are described elsewhere (12,13). The HOVON-84 study was approved by the institutional review board of all centers, and participants signed an informed consent form.

Study Design

Patients at least 66 y old received 6 cycles of R-CHOP14 followed by 2 additional doses of rituximab; patients aged 65 y or less received 8 cycles of R-CHOP14. Baseline PET was highly recommended but not mandatory. I-PET was performed after 4 cycles of R-CHOP14 or RR-CHOP14 (without treatment modifications, I-PET4).

Qualitative and Quantitative Image Analysis

Baseline PET scans were analyzed with the semiautomatic ACCURATE tool (Fig. 1) (14) to obtain MTV using a fixed SUV of at least 4.0 (15,16). Continuous MTV values had a nonnormal distribution and were log-transformed using the natural logarithm. We used both the continuous and the dichotomized MTV with a prespecified cutoff adopted from the PETAL study to identify a high-MTV group (>345 cm3) and a low-MTV group (MTV ≤ 345 cm3) (8).

FIGURE 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 1.

Flowchart of PET scans available for I-PET4, ΔSUVmax, and baseline MTV analyses. *PET quality was acceptable when liver SUVmean was 1.3–3.0 and total image activity was between 50%–80% of total injected dose. PD = progressive disease.

I-PET4 scans were centrally reviewed by 2 independent reviewers from a pool of 10 reviewers (13) according to DS criteria (9,17). Discrepancies were resolved by adjudication. DS4–5 was categorized as no complete metabolic response (PET-positive), and DS1–3 was categorized as complete metabolic response (PET-negative) (9,17). DS4 was assigned when tumor SUVmax exceeded hepatic SUVmax by fewer than 3 times, and DS5 was assigned when there were new lymphoma lesions or when tumor SUVmax was 3 or more times hepatic SUVmax (9). The accuracy of other DS cutoffs (i.e., 1 vs. 2–5, 1–2 vs. 3–5, and 1–4 vs. 5) for I-PET4 were evaluated in sensitivity analyses.

In patients with a baseline PET scan and an I-PET4 scan with DS2–5, we measured the change in SUVmax between baseline and I-PET4 (ΔSUVmax). For DS1, ΔSUVmax was set at 100% reduction (9). We applied a prespecified ΔSUVmax cutoff of 70% reduction between baseline and I-PET4 to define a positive (≤70%) or negative (>70%) I-PET result (10).

Statistical Analysis

The primary outcome measure was 2-y PFS, defined as time from randomization to disease progression, relapse, or death from any cause within 2 y (18). Survival curves were obtained with Kaplan–Meier analyses for PFS stratified by dichotomized PET response criteria and compared with log-rank tests. We used univariate and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models to assess the effects of baseline clinical factors (aaIPI, age, B symptoms, MTV, sex, treatment arm) and I-PET4 response criteria (DS, ΔSUVmax) on 2-y PFS. A backward Wald elimination procedure was used to test which prognostic factors were independently associated with 2-y PFS. In addition, 2 × 2 contingency tables were constructed to calculate diagnostic measures (i.e., sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value [PPV], and negative predictive value [NPV]) to predict 2-y PFS. Sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, univariate hazard ratio (HR), and receiver-operating-characteristic curve were used to define the optimal I-PET4 response criteria to predict 2-y PFS. We examined whether the addition of baseline MTV to the multivariable Cox model improved prediction. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS Statistics (version 22; IBM) and R (version 3.6.3). A P value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Study Population

In total, 574 eligible DLBCL patients were included in the HOVON-84 study; 534 (93%) underwent I-PET4. Twenty-one I-PET4 scans were not evaluable (Fig. 1). The distribution of baseline characteristics and 2-y PFS were similar for patients with and without baseline MTV, I-PET4, and ΔSUVmax evaluations (Table 1).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1.

Baseline Patient Characteristics

Prognostic Value of Baseline aaIPI and MTV

After a median follow-up of 91 mo (interquartile range, 84–101 mo), the estimated 2-y PFS was 79% (95% CI, 76%–83%). Most patients belonged to the low-intermediate or high-intermediate aaIPI groups (35% and 50%, respectively; Table 1). In the Kaplan–Meier analysis, both low and low-intermediate aaIPI survival curves and high-intermediate and high aaIPI survival curves crossed each other without statistically significant differences (Supplemental Fig. 1A; supplemental materials are available at http://jnm.snmjournals.org). Dichotomization into low or low-intermediate and high-intermediate or high yielded a 2-y PFS of 91% (95% CI, 87%–95%) and 71% (95% CI, 66%–76%), respectively, with a corresponding univariate HR of 3.6 (95% CI, 2.2–5.9; Supplemental Fig. 1B; Table 2).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 2.

Diagnostic and Prognostic Measures for aaIPI, Baseline MTV, Different Cutoffs of Deauville 5-Point Scale at I-PET4, and ΔSUVmax for 2-Year PFS

Of 384 patients who underwent baseline PET, baseline MTV was measurable in 296 (52%; Fig. 1). The continuous log-transformed MTV had a univariate HR of 1.4 (95% CI, 1.2–1.8; Supplemental Table 1). Patients in the low-MTV group (MTV ≤ 345 cm3, n = 137; 46%) had a 2-y PFS of 86% (95% CI, 80%–92%) versus 75% (95% CI, 68%–81%) in the high-MTV group (MTV > 345 cm3, n = 159; 54%), with a corresponding univariate HR of 2.0 (95% CI, 1.1–3.4; Table 2). I-PET and end-of-treatment PET scans were both available for 474 patients (Supplemental Table 2), with an overall agreement of 87% (95% CI, 84%–90%).

I-PET4 Analyses

Of 513 I-PET4 scans, 113 (22%) were rated as PET-positive (no complete metabolic response). Dichotomization of I-PET4 results into DS4–5 (positive) versus DS1–3 (negative) yielded a 2-y PFS of 61% (95% CI, 52%–70%) for I-PET4–positive patients and 84% (95% CI, 81%–88%) for I-PET4–negative patients (P < 0.001), with a corresponding univariate HR of 3.1 (95% CI, 2.1–4.5; Table 2; Fig. 2A). Among the patients who experienced a relapse, the median time to relapse for I-PET4–positives was 8.1 mo (interquartile range, 4.4–23.2), versus 18.1 mo (interquartile range, 8.3–46.3) for I-PET–negatives. The corresponding PPV and NPV for 2-y PFS were 38% (95% CI, 30%–47%) and 85% (95% CI, 81%–88%), respectively.

FIGURE 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 2.

Kaplan–Meier curves with numbers at risk for PFS in months stratified by I-PET4 result according to DS (A) and according to ΔSUVmax result (B).

Optimal I-PET4 Response Criterion

For various DS cutoffs, NPVs ranged between 82% and 85% for I-PET4 (Table 2). PPVs varied widely for different cutoffs (22%–68%); the highest PPV was seen for the DS5 cutoff in I-PET4 (68%). Also, the univariate HR of 7.4 was highest for the DS1–4 cutoff versus DS5, yielding the best separation between good and poor outcome (Supplemental Fig. 2). However, only 25 of 513 patients (5%) had a DS5.

ΔSUVmax analysis was feasible in 367 of 574 patients (64%; Fig. 1). In patients with no more than a 70% ΔSUVmax reduction between baseline and I-PET4 (n = 38, 10%), the 2-y PFS was 47% (95% CI, 31%–63%), versus 83% (95% CI, 78%–87%) for patients with more than a 70% reduction (Fig. 2B, P < 0.001), with a univariate HR of 4.8 (95% CI, 2.9–8.0). Corresponding PPVs and NPVs for 2-y PFS were 53% (95% CI, 37%–68%) and 83% (95% CI, 78%–86%), respectively (Table 2). Repeating these comparisons in the 296 patients with complete metrics on baseline MTV yielded similar results (Supplemental Table 3).

PPV and HRs were better for ΔSUVmax than for the most commonly used cutoff, DS4–5 (53% vs. 38% and 4.8 vs. 3.1, respectively). NPV was above 80% for all applied criteria. When ΔSUVmax was compared with the most commonly used DS cutoff, DS4–5, ΔSUVmax was preferred for prediction of 2-y PFS, but the highest PPV and HR were found for the DS5 cutoff.

Combined Baseline and I-PET4 Analysis

Statistically significant prognostic factors for 2-y PFS in univariate Cox regression analyses were a ΔSUVmax of 70% or less, a high-intermediate or high aaIPI, and B symptoms. In multivariable analysis, a high-intermediate or high aaIPI and no more than a 70% reduction in ΔSUVmax were independently associated with 2-y PFS (Supplemental Table 4). A low or low-intermediate aaIPI and a ΔSUVmax of more than 70% (37% of patients) resulted in an NPV of 93% (95% CI, 87%–96%), whereas a high-intermediate or high aaIPI and a ΔSUVmax of 70% or less (6% of patients) resulted in a PPV of 65% (95% CI, 45%–81%; Supplemental Fig. 3).

Dichotomized baseline MTV did not add prognostic value to ΔSUVmax and aaIPI for prediction of 2-y PFS. When continuous log-transformed MTV was added to the multivariable Cox model, aaIPI was eliminated by backward elimination, yielding log-transformed MTV, an age of more than 60 y, B symptoms, and ΔSUVmax as factors independently associated with 2-y PFS (Supplemental Table 1).

Overall Survival Analyses

The results of the response criteria and uni- and multivariable analyses for 2-y overall survival are presented in Supplemental Tables 5–7 and Supplemental Figure 4.

DISCUSSION

In this multicenter study, DLBCL I-PET after 4 cycles of R(R)-CHOP14 added predictive value to baseline clinical characteristics (aaIPI) for 2-y PFS, with high NPVs (82%–86%) independent of all I-PET response criteria. However, the PPV was still relatively low. Combining clinical and PET data showed that aaIPI and ΔSUVmax were independently associated with 2-y PFS, with HRs of 3.2 and 5.0, respectively. Adding log-transformed baseline MTV only slightly improved the predictive value combined with the ΔSUVmax response criteria. As a secondary objective, we compared the most commonly used visual and semiquantitative criteria and externally validated that ΔSUVmax criteria were the optimal I-PET4 criteria to predict 2-y PFS, with a HR of 4.8 and a PPV of 53%.

On the basis of the PPV and univariate HR in I-PET, the DS5 cutoff performed best, with a PFS clearly below 50% for the DS5 group. However, the percentage of DS5-positive patients was low (5%), but this group could be of interest for future new therapy strategies. The univariate HR for 2-y PFS with a DS4–5 cutoff in I-PET4 was 3.1 (95% CI, 2.1–4.5), which is similar to the pooled HR of 3.1 (95% CI, 2.5–3.9) in a systematic review, even though in that review I-PET was performed after 1–4 cycles of treatment and less strict I-PET response criteria were applied (19). The NPV for 2-y PFS in our study was 85%, which is in line with these previous studies generally reporting NPVs above 80% (range, 64%–95%) (19).

Two recent retrospective DLBCL studies analyzed the value of I-PET after 4 cycles (20,21), and both concluded that ΔSUVmax had a higher accuracy and PPV than DS in predicting PFS. The retrospective study from Itti et al. (n = 114, I-PET after 2 cycles), who analyzed different cutoffs for DS after 2 cycles, reported PPVs for DS4–5 and ΔSUVmax that were remarkably identical to our study (39% vs. 38% and 52% vs. 53%, respectively) (22). A DLBCL subgroup analysis of the PETAL study also reported a more favorable PPV for ΔSUVmax I-PET assessment than for Deauville assessment (23).

Baseline clinical characteristics and chemoimmunotherapy sensitivity are both relevant factors in outcome prediction. This relevancy was demonstrated in our multivariable analysis, in which aaIPI and ΔSUVmax (reflecting chemosensitivity) were both independent predictors of 2-y PFS. Again, the subgroup with both high-intermediate or high aaIPI and a ΔSUVmax of 70% or less had a PFS clearly below 50% but was relatively small (6% of all patients). Selection of a poor-risk group of only 6% is justified both from a cost awareness perspective and because it is the group most likely not be cured by standard treatment. These patients can be treated within clinical trials investigating the efficacy of new drugs.

Several relatively small retrospective studies reported inconsistent results regarding associations of clinical characteristics and I-PET results (DS or ΔSUVmax) with survival in multivariable Cox models (7,22,24). Two prospective studies concluded that only I-PET and not IPI was independently associated with event-free survival (25,26). The randomized phase III trials PETAL (I-PET after 2 cycles of R-CHOP21) and CALGB-50303 (I-PET after 2 cycles R-CHOP21 or DA-EPOCH-R [dose-adjusted etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and rituximab]) also concluded that I-PET with ΔSUVmax (cutoff, 66%) and IPI were independent predictors for event-free survival and PFS (11,27), respectively.

Baseline MTV assessment was not a strong predictor of 2-y PFS in our study (Table 2; Supplemental Tables 1, 3, 5, and 7). We used a segmentation method applying a fixed SUV of at least 4.0, on the basis of a recent study showing that this method performed best and had a discriminative power similar to that of other segmentation methods (16). Addition of dichotomized baseline MTV (345-cm3 cutoff) to ΔSUVmax did not improve the predictive value, but log-transformed continuous MTV added some independent predictive value when combined with ΔSUVmax. In a secondary analysis of the PETAL randomized clinical trial (DLBCL subset, I-PET after 2 cycles, same MTV software and methodology as in our study), baseline MTV and ΔSUVmax were the only independent outcome predictors (8,28). We could not confirm these findings; possible explanations are the different PET timing (HOVON-84: I-PET4) or patient characteristics (HOVON-84: median age 3 y higher; advanced stage, 82% vs. 58% in PETAL). We chose a higher ΔSUVmax because the PET timing was different (I-PET4 vs. I-PET2) and to validate a formerly presented cutoff (10,20). This choice does not explain the difference in added value of MTV, since the positivity percentages were the same (10.4% vs. 9.6% in PETAL), as was the 2-y PFS for the positive (46.9% and 46.7%) and negative (80.2% and 82.5%) groups according to the ΔSUVmax criteria for HOVON-84 and PETAL, respectively. Recently, Vercellino et al. showed that a combination of high baseline MTV and high performance status (≥2) identifies an ultra-risk DLBCL population (29). We could not confirm this extra risk in our study.

There were several strengths to our study. First, to our knowledge, there are no other large, randomized trials with a homogeneous first-line treatment regimen and observational I-PET after 4 R-CHOP14 cycles. Another strength was the central review procedure for Deauville scoring, with 2 independent reviewers and a strict DS5 definition, which allowed for an analysis to determine the optimal I-PET4 response criteria (13).

On the basis of the relatively low values for PPV, escalation of treatment for the I-PET4–positive group is not yet recommend for clinical practice, but evidence in favor of I-PET–adapted treatment is clearly growing (11,30–32). The GAINED randomized clinical trial (30) enrolled 670 DLBCL patients (aged 18–60 y, aaIPI ≥ 1); I-PET2–positive/I-PET4–negative patients (n = 87) were scheduled to receive high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplantation and had no statistically significant difference in PFS from the I-PET2–negative/I-PET4–negative patients (n = 401) who continued standard treatment. However, no firm conclusions can be made, because there was no randomization within these I-PET–adapted groups.

Because the NPV is acceptable (>80% for all criteria), reduction of treatment based on I-PET4 could be of interest, especially for low-risk and elderly patients. The randomized FLYER trial showed that in a group of 592 DLBCL patients (aged 18–60 y, no aaIPI risk factors, no bulky disease), 4 cycles of R-CHOP21 + 2 cycles of rituximab was not inferior to 6 cycles of R-CHOP21 (6), and in an exploratory analysis the international GOYA randomized clinical trial found no PFS benefit with 8 cycles of R-CHOP21 compared with 6 cycles of R-CHOP21 + 2 cycles of rituximab (31). The S1001 study presented 4 cycles of R-CHOP as the new standard for most patients with limited-stage disease (32).

CONCLUSION

In this large DLBCL study, I-PET after 4 cycles of R(R)-CHOP14 added predictive value to aaIPI for 2-y PFS, and both were independent response biomarkers in a multivariable Cox model, yielding a high NPV of 93% for 2-y PFS. Comparing the most commonly used DS and ΔSUVmax cutoffs, the optimal response criterion for I-PET4 to predict 2-y PFS was ΔSUVmax.

DISCLOSURE

This work was supported by the Alpe d’HuZes/KWF fund, provided by the Dutch Cancer Society (VU2012-5848). Pieternella Lugtenburg receives research funding from Roche, Takeda, and Servier and honoraria for advisory boards from Roche, Takeda, Servier, Genmab, Celgene, and Genentech. Josée Zijlstra receives research funding from, and is on the advisory board for, Roche. No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

KEY POINTS

QUESTION: What value do baseline MTV and I-PET add to aaIPI in predicting 2-y PFS in DLBCL, and what are the optimal I-PET response criteria?

PERTINENT FINDINGS: aaIPI and ΔSUVmax were independent predictors for 2-y PFS in DLBCL. Six percent of patients had a high PPV of 65% resulting in poor survival outcome. ΔSUVmax outperformed Deauville score in 2-y PFS prediction.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PATIENT CARE: The subgroup comprising the 6% of patients having a high or high-intermediate aaIPI and a 70% or less SUVmax reduction at I-PET is of interest for testing new therapy strategies in DLBCL.

Footnotes

  • Published online Oct. 21, 2021.

  • © 2022 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Cunningham D,
    2. Hawkes EA,
    3. Jack A,
    4. et al
    . Rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone in patients with newly diagnosed diffuse large B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma: a phase 3 comparison of dose intensification with 14-day versus 21-day cycles. Lancet. 2013;381:1817–1826.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Delarue R,
    2. Tilly H,
    3. Mounier N,
    4. et al
    . Dose-dense rituximab-CHOP compared with standard rituximab-CHOP in elderly patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (the LNH03-6B study): a randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:525–533.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. van Imhoff GW,
    2. McMillan A,
    3. Matasar MJ,
    4. et al
    . Ofatumumab versus rituximab salvage chemoimmunotherapy in relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: the ORCHARRD study. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:544–551.
    OpenUrl
  4. 4.↵
    1. Gisselbrecht C,
    2. Glass B,
    3. Mounier N,
    4. et al
    . Salvage regimens with autologous transplantation for relapsed large B-cell lymphoma in the rituximab era. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:4184–4190.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. Ziepert M,
    2. Hasenclever D,
    3. Kuhnt E,
    4. et al
    . Standard international prognostic index remains a valid predictor of outcome for patients with aggressive CD20+ B-cell lymphoma in the rituximab era. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:2373–2380.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Poeschel V,
    2. Held G,
    3. Ziepert M,
    4. et al
    .; FLYER Trial Investigators; German Lymphoma Alliance. Four versus six cycles of CHOP chemotherapy in combination with six applications of rituximab in patients with aggressive B-cell lymphoma with favourable prognosis (FLYER): a randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2019;394:2271–2281.
    OpenUrl
  7. 7.↵
    1. Mikhaeel NG,
    2. Smith D,
    3. Dunn JT,
    4. et al
    . Combination of baseline metabolic tumour volume and early response on PET/CT improves progression-free survival prediction in DLBCL. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:1209–1219.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Schmitz C,
    2. Hüttmann A,
    3. Müller SP,
    4. et al
    . Dynamic risk assessment based on positron emission tomography scanning in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: post-hoc analysis from the PETAL trial. Eur J Cancer. 2020;124:25–36.
    OpenUrl
  9. 9.↵
    1. Barrington SF,
    2. Mikhaeel NG,
    3. Kostakoglu L,
    4. et al
    . Role of imaging in the staging and response assessment of lymphoma: consensus of the International Conference on Malignant Lymphomas Imaging Working Group. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:3048–3058.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    1. Casasnovas RO,
    2. Meignan M,
    3. Berriolo-Riedinger A,
    4. et al
    .; Groupe d’étude des lymphomes de l’adulte (GELA). SUVmax reduction improves early prognosis value of interim positron emission tomography scans in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Blood. 2011;118:37–43.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    1. Dührsen U,
    2. Müller S,
    3. Hertenstein B,
    4. et al
    .; PETAL Trial Investigators. Positron emission tomography-guided therapy of aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphomas (PETAL): a multicenter, randomized phase III trial. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:2024–2034.
    OpenUrl
  12. 12.↵
    1. Lugtenburg PJ,
    2. de Nully Brown P,
    3. van der Holt B,
    4. et al
    . Rituximab-CHOP with early rituximab intensification for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: a randomized phase 3 trial of the HOVON and the Nordic Lymphoma Group (HOVON-84). J Clin Oncol. 2020;38:3377–3387.
    OpenUrl
  13. 13.↵
    1. Burggraaff CN,
    2. Cornelisse AC,
    3. Hoekstra OS,
    4. et al
    .; HOVON Imaging Working Group. Interobserver agreement of interim and end-of-treatment 18F-FDG PET/CT in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL): impact on clinical practice and trials. J Nucl Med. 2018;59:1831–1836.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Boellaard R
    . Quantitative oncology molecular analysis suite: ACCURATE [abstract]. J Nucl Med. 2018;59(suppl.1):1753.
    OpenUrl
  15. 15.↵
    1. Burggraaff CN,
    2. Rahman F,
    3. Kaßner I,
    4. et al
    .; PETRA Consortium. Optimizing workflows for fast and reliable metabolic tumor volume measurements in diffuse large B cell lymphoma. Mol Imaging Biol. 2020;22:1102–1110.
    OpenUrl
  16. 16.↵
    1. Barrington SF,
    2. Zwezerijnen BGJC,
    3. de Vet HCW,
    4. et al
    . Automated segmentation of baseline metabolic total tumor burden in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: which method is most successful? A study on behalf of the PETRA consortium. J Nucl Med. 2021;62:332–337.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. 17.↵
    1. Cheson BD,
    2. Fisher RI,
    3. Barrington SF,
    4. et al
    . Recommendations for initial evaluation, staging, and response assessment of Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma: the Lugano classification. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:3059–3068.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    1. Maurer MJ,
    2. Habermann TM,
    3. Shi Q,
    4. et al
    . Progression-free survival at 24 months (PFS24) and subsequent outcome for patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) enrolled on randomized clinical trials. Ann Oncol. 2018;29:1822–1827.
    OpenUrl
  19. 19.↵
    1. Burggraaff CN,
    2. de Jong A,
    3. Hoekstra OS,
    4. et al
    . Predictive value of interim positron emission tomography in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019;46:65–79.
    OpenUrl
  20. 20.↵
    1. Toledano MN,
    2. Vera P,
    3. Tilly H,
    4. Jardin F,
    5. Becker S
    . Comparison of therapeutic evaluation criteria in FDG-PET/CT in patients with diffuse large-cell B-cell lymphoma: prognostic impact of tumor/liver ratio. PLoS One. 2019;14:e0211649.
    OpenUrl
  21. 21.↵
    1. Li X,
    2. Sun X,
    3. Li J,
    4. et al
    . Interim PET/CT based on visual and semiquantitative analysis predicts survival in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Cancer Med. 2019;8:5012–5022.
    OpenUrl
  22. 22.↵
    1. Itti E,
    2. Meignan M,
    3. Berriolo-Riedinger A,
    4. et al
    . An international confirmatory study of the prognostic value of early PET/CT in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: comparison between Deauville criteria and ΔSUVmax. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:1312–1320.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Rekowski J,
    2. Hüttmann A,
    3. Schmitz C,
    4. et al
    . Interim PET evaluation in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma employing published recommendations: comparison of the Deauville 5-point scale and the ΔSUVmax method. J Nucl Med. 2021;62:37–42.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. 24.↵
    1. Nols N,
    2. Mounier N,
    3. Bouazza S,
    4. et al
    . Quantitative and qualitative analysis of metabolic response at interim positron emission tomography scan combined with international prognostic index is highly predictive of outcome in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Leuk Lymphoma. 2014;55:773–780.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Carr R,
    2. Fanti S,
    3. Paez D,
    4. et al
    .; IAEA Lymphoma Study Group. Prospective international cohort study demonstrates inability of interim PET to predict treatment failure in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:1936–1944 .
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. 26.↵
    1. Mamot C,
    2. Klingbiel D,
    3. Hitz F,
    4. et al
    . Final results of a prospective evaluation of the predictive value of interim positron emission tomography in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma treated with R-CHOP-14 (SAKK 38/07). J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:2523–2529.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. 27.↵
    1. Schöder H,
    2. Polley MY,
    3. Knopp MV,
    4. et al
    . Prognostic value of interim FDG-PET in diffuse large cell lymphoma: results from the CALGB 50303 clinical trial. Blood. 2020;135:2224–2234.
    OpenUrl
  28. 28.↵
    1. Schmitz C,
    2. Hüttmann A,
    3. Müller SP,
    4. et al
    . Supporting data for positron emission tomography-based risk modelling using a fixed-instead of a relative thresholding method for total metabolic tumor volume determination. Data Brief. 2019;28:104976.
    OpenUrl
  29. 29.↵
    1. Vercellino L,
    2. Cottereau AS,
    3. Casasnovas O,
    4. et al
    . High total metabolic tumor volume at baseline predicts survival independent of response to therapy. Blood. 2020;135:1396–1405.
    OpenUrl
  30. 30.↵
    1. Le Gouill S,
    2. Ghesquières H,
    3. Oberic L,
    4. et al
    . Obinutuzumab vs rituximab for advanced DLBCL: a PET-guided and randomized phase 3 study by LYSA. Blood. 2021;137:2307–2320.
    OpenUrl
  31. 31.↵
    1. Sehn LH,
    2. Congiu AG,
    3. Culligan DJ,
    4. et al
    . No added benefit of eight versus six cycles of CHOP when combined with rituximab in previously untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients: results from the international phase III GOYA study [abstract]. Blood. 2018;132(suppl 1):783.
    OpenUrl
  32. 32.↵
    1. Persky DO,
    2. Li H,
    3. Stephens DM,
    4. et al
    . Positron emission tomography–directed therapy for patients with limited-stage diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: results of intergroup national clinical trials network study S1001. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38:3003–3011.
    OpenUrl
  • Received for publication February 27, 2021.
  • Revision received September 29, 2021.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine: 63 (7)
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 63, Issue 7
July 1, 2022
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Complete Issue (PDF)
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.
18F-FDG PET Improves Baseline Clinical Predictors of Response in Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma: The HOVON-84 Study
(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
18F-FDG PET Improves Baseline Clinical Predictors of Response in Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma: The HOVON-84 Study
Coreline N. Burggraaff, Jakoba J. Eertink, Pieternella J. Lugtenburg, Otto S. Hoekstra, Anne I.J. Arens, Bart de Keizer, Martijn W. Heymans, Bronno van der Holt, Sanne E. Wiegers, Simone Pieplenbosch, Ronald Boellaard, Henrica C.W. de Vet, Josée M. Zijlstra, on behalf of the HOVON Imaging Working Group and the HOVON Lymphoma Working Group
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Jul 2022, 63 (7) 1001-1007; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.121.262205

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
18F-FDG PET Improves Baseline Clinical Predictors of Response in Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma: The HOVON-84 Study
Coreline N. Burggraaff, Jakoba J. Eertink, Pieternella J. Lugtenburg, Otto S. Hoekstra, Anne I.J. Arens, Bart de Keizer, Martijn W. Heymans, Bronno van der Holt, Sanne E. Wiegers, Simone Pieplenbosch, Ronald Boellaard, Henrica C.W. de Vet, Josée M. Zijlstra, on behalf of the HOVON Imaging Working Group and the HOVON Lymphoma Working Group
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Jul 2022, 63 (7) 1001-1007; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.121.262205
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Visual Abstract
    • Abstract
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • CONCLUSION
    • DISCLOSURE
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Measuring Total Metabolic Tumor Volume from 18F-FDG PET: A Reality Check
  • Prognostic Value of 18F-FDG PET Radiomics Features at Baseline in PET-Guided Consolidation Strategy in Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma: A Machine-Learning Analysis from the GAINED Study
  • Prognostic Value of 18F-FDG PET/CT in Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma Treated with a Risk-Adapted Immunochemotherapy Regimen
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • First-in-Human Study of 18F-Labeled PET Tracer for Glutamate AMPA Receptor [18F]K-40: A Derivative of [11C]K-2
  • Detection of HER2-Low Lesions Using HER2-Targeted PET Imaging in Patients with Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Paired HER2 PET and Tumor Biopsy Analysis
  • [11C]Carfentanil PET Whole-Body Imaging of μ-Opioid Receptors: A First in-Human Study
Show more Clinical Investigation

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • DLBCL
  • PET
  • Deauville score
  • ΔSUVmax
  • metabolic tumor volume
SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire