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 (Human)

Interim PET evaluation in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma employing published recommendations: Comparison of the Deauville 5-point scale and the ΔSUVmax method

Jan Rekowski, Andreas Hüttmann, Christine Schmitz, Stefan P. Müller, Lars Kurch, Jörg Kotzerke, Christiane Franzius, Matthias Weckesser, Frank M. Bengel, Martin Freesmeyer, Andreas Hertel, Thomas Krohn, Jens Holzinger, Ingo Brink, Uwe Haberkorn, Fonyuy Nyuyki, Daniëlle M. E. van Assema, Lilli Geworski, Dirk Hasenclever, Karl-Heinz Jöckel and Ulrich Dührsen
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2020, jnumed.120.244145; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.120.244145
Jan Rekowski
1 Institut für Medizinische Informatik, Biometrie und Epidemiologie, Universität Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Jan Rekowski
Andreas Hüttmann
2 Klinik für Hämatologie, Universitätsklinikum, Essen;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Andreas Hüttmann
Christine Schmitz
2 Klinik für Hämatologie, Universitätsklinikum, Essen;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Christine Schmitz
Stefan P. Müller
3 Klinik für Nuklearmedizin, Universitätsklinikum, Essen;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lars Kurch
4 Klinik und Poliklinik für Nuklearmedizin, Universitätsklinikum, Leipzig;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jörg Kotzerke
5 Klinik für Nuklearmedizin, Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Christiane Franzius
6 Zentrum für moderne Diagnostik (Zemodi), Zentrum für Nuklearmedizin und PET/CT, Bremen;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Matthias Weckesser
7 Klinik für Nuklearmedizin, Universitätsklinikum, Münster;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Matthias Weckesser
Frank M. Bengel
8 Klinik für Nuklearmedizin, Medizinische Hochschule, Hannover;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Frank M. Bengel
Martin Freesmeyer
9 Klinik für Nuklearmedizin, Universitätsklinikum, Jena;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Andreas Hertel
10 Klinik für Diagnostische und Therapeutische Nuklearmedizin, Klinikum, Fulda;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Thomas Krohn
11 Klinik für Nuklearmedizin, Universitätsklinikum, Aachen;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jens Holzinger
12 Institut für Diagnostische Radiologie, Neuroradiologie und Nuklearmedizin, Johannes Wesling Klinikum, Minden;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ingo Brink
13 Klinik für nuklearmedizinische Diagnostik und Therapie, Ernst von Bergmann Klinikum, Potsdam;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Uwe Haberkorn
14 Radiologische Klinik und Poliklinik, Universitätsklinikum, Heidelberg;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Fonyuy Nyuyki
15 Klinik für Nuklearmedizin, Brüderkrankenhaus St. Josef, Paderborn;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Daniëlle M. E. van Assema
16 Department of Nuclear Medicine, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lilli Geworski
17 Stabsstelle Strahlenschutz und Abteilung Medizinische Physik, Medizinische Hochschule, Hannover;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Dirk Hasenclever
18 Institut für Medizinische Informatik, Statistik und Epidemiologie, Universität Leipzig
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Karl-Heinz Jöckel
1 Institut für Medizinische Informatik, Biometrie und Epidemiologie, Universität Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ulrich Dührsen
2 Klinik für Hämatologie, Universitätsklinikum, Essen;
  • 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

Abstract

The value of interim 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (iPET) guided treatment decisions in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) has been the subject of much debate. This investigation focuses on a comparison of the Deauville score and the deltaSUVmax (ΔSUVmax) approach – two methods to assess early metabolic response to standard chemotherapy in DLBCL. Methods: Of 609 DLBCL patients participating in the Positron Emission Tomography-guided Therapy of Aggressive non-Hodgkin Lymphomas (PETAL) trial, iPET scans of 596 patients originally evaluated using the ΔSUVmax method were available for post-hoc assessment of the Deauville score. A commonly used definition of an unfavorable iPET result according to the Deauville score is an uptake greater than that of the liver, whereas an unfavorable iPET scan with regard to the ΔSUVmax approach is characterized as a relative reduction of the maximum standardized uptake value between baseline and iPET staging of less than or equal to 66%. We investigated the two methods’ correlation and concordance by Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient and the agreement in classification, respectively. We further used Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression to assess differences in survival between patient subgroups defined by the pre-specified cut-offs. Time-dependent receiver operating curve analysis provided information on the methods’ respective discrimination performance. Results: Deauville score and ΔSUVmax approach differed in their iPET-based prognosis. The ΔSUVmax approach outperformed the Deauville score in terms of discrimination performance – most likely due to a high number of false-positive decisions by the Deauville score. Cut-off-independent discrimination performance remained low for both methods, but cut-off-related analyses showed promising results. Both favored the ΔSUVmax approach, e.g. for the segregation by iPET response, where the event-free survival hazard ratio was 3.14 (95% confidence interval (CI): 2.22 – 4.46) for ΔSUVmax and 1.70 (95% CI: 1.29 – 2.24) for the Deauville score. Conclusion: When considering treatment intensification, the currently used Deauville score cut-off of an uptake above that of the liver seems to be inappropriate and associated with potential harm for DLBCL patients. The ΔSUVmax criterion of a relative reduction of the maximum standardized uptake value of less than or equal to 66% should be considered as an alternative.

  • Hematology
  • Oncology: Lymphoma
  • PET/CT
  • Deauville score
  • Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma
  • Early metabolic response to therapy
  • Interim positron emission tomography
  • deltaSUVmax approach
  • Copyright © 2020 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Inc.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine: 66 (5)
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 66, Issue 5
May 1, 2025
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Complete Issue (PDF)
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.
Interim PET evaluation in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma employing published recommendations: Comparison of the Deauville 5-point scale and the ΔSUVmax method
(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
Interim PET evaluation in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma employing published recommendations: Comparison of the Deauville 5-point scale and the ΔSUVmax method
Jan Rekowski, Andreas Hüttmann, Christine Schmitz, Stefan P. Müller, Lars Kurch, Jörg Kotzerke, Christiane Franzius, Matthias Weckesser, Frank M. Bengel, Martin Freesmeyer, Andreas Hertel, Thomas Krohn, Jens Holzinger, Ingo Brink, Uwe Haberkorn, Fonyuy Nyuyki, Daniëlle M. E. van Assema, Lilli Geworski, Dirk Hasenclever, Karl-Heinz Jöckel, Ulrich Dührsen
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2020, jnumed.120.244145; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.120.244145

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Interim PET evaluation in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma employing published recommendations: Comparison of the Deauville 5-point scale and the ΔSUVmax method
Jan Rekowski, Andreas Hüttmann, Christine Schmitz, Stefan P. Müller, Lars Kurch, Jörg Kotzerke, Christiane Franzius, Matthias Weckesser, Frank M. Bengel, Martin Freesmeyer, Andreas Hertel, Thomas Krohn, Jens Holzinger, Ingo Brink, Uwe Haberkorn, Fonyuy Nyuyki, Daniëlle M. E. van Assema, Lilli Geworski, Dirk Hasenclever, Karl-Heinz Jöckel, Ulrich Dührsen
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2020, jnumed.120.244145; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.120.244145
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • This Month in JNM
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Application of the Lugano Classification for Initial Evaluation, Staging, and Response Assessment of Hodgkin and Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma: The PRoLoG Consensus Initiative (Part 2--Technical)
  • 18F-FDG PET Improves Baseline Clinical Predictors of Response in Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma: The HOVON-84 Study
  • Interobserver Agreement on Automated Metabolic Tumor Volume Measurements of Deauville Score 4 and 5 Lesions at Interim 18F-FDG PET in Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma
  • Not Yet Time to Abandon the Deauville Criteria in Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma
  • Google Scholar

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • hematology
  • Oncology: Lymphoma
  • PET/CT
  • Deauville score
  • diffuse large B-cell lymphoma
  • early metabolic response to therapy
  • Interim positron emission tomography
  • deltaSUVmax approach
SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire