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
  • Log out
  • My Cart

Search

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

18F-FDG PET for Measurement of Response and Prediction of Outcome to Relapsed or Refractory Mantle Cell Lymphoma Therapy with Bendamustine–Rituximab

Dominick Lamonica, Daniel A. Graf, Mihaela C. Munteanu and Myron S. Czuczman
Journal of Nuclear Medicine January 2017, 58 (1) 62-68; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.116.173542
Dominick Lamonica
1Departments of Medicine and Nuclear Medicine, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, New York
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Daniel A. Graf
2Nuclear Medicine Residency, University at Buffalo School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Buffalo, New York
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mihaela C. Munteanu
3Clinical Development, Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products Research & Development, Inc., Frazer, Pennsylvania; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Myron S. Czuczman
4Department of Medicine, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, New York
  • 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

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Additional Files
  • FIGURE 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 1.

    (A) Pretherapy and posttherapy 18F-FDG PET/CT scans for patients showing a CMR to BR. (B) Pretherapy and posttherapy scans for patients without CMR (partial response) after BR.

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

    Changes in DS from baseline (x-axis) to posttreatment (y-axis) with no. of patients in each category. Responders improved so that posttreatment scans showed at most uptake ≤ uptake by the liver with no new areas representing new disease (DS 3).

  • FIGURE 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 3.

    Kaplan–Meier analysis of PFS for patients treated with BR by metabolic response.

  • FIGURE 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 4.

    Kaplan–Meier analysis of DOR for patients treated with BR by metabolic response.

  • FIGURE 5.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 5.

    Kaplan–Meier analysis of overall response for patients treated with BR by metabolic response.

Tables

  • Figures
  • Additional Files
    • View popup
    TABLE 1

    Baseline Demographic and Clinical Characteristics

    VariableBaseline data
    Mean age (y)68 (range, 52–78)
    Sex (n)
     Male22 (69%)
     Female10 (31%)
    Lymphoma status (n)
     Relapsed17 (53%)
     Refractory15 (47%)
    MIPI (n)
     ≤3 (low risk)17 (53%)
     4–5 (intermediate risk)9 (28%)
     ≥6 (high risk)6 (19%)
    Mean MIPI ± SD3.78 ± 1.60
    Presence of B symptoms (n)7 (22%)
    Previous cancer surgery (n)8 (25%)
    Previous radiation therapy (n)6 (19%)
    Previous chemotherapy (n)
     Prior rituximab32 (100%)
     Prior alkylator31 (97%)
    Response to the most recent rituximab-based chemotherapy (n)
     Complete16 (50%)
     Partial6 (19%)
     Stable disease4 (13%)
     Progressive disease5 (16%)
     Not available1 (3%)
    Cyclin D1 status (n)
     Positive17 (53%)
     Negative8 (25%)
     Not available7 (22%)
    LDH level (n)
     <250 IU/L20 (63%)
     250–450 IU/L (reference range)4 (13%)
     >450 IU/L7 (22%)
     Not available1 (3%)
    β2-microglobulin level (n)
     1.1–2.8 mg/L (reference range)31 (97%)
     >2.8 mg/L1 (3%)
    • LDH = lactate dehydrogenase.

    • View popup
    TABLE 2

    DS by 18F-FDG PET Conversion

    18F-FDG PET results
    VariableCMR (n = 24)Non-CMR (n = 8)Total (n = 32)
    DS at baseline (n)
     48 (33)1 (13)9 (28)
     516 (67)7 (88)23 (72)
    DS at cycle 6 (n)
     18 (33)08 (25)
     213 (54)013 (41)
     33 (13)03 (9)
     404 (50)4 (13)
     504 (50)4 (13)
    Response by baseline variables (n)
     Relapsed disease*15 (88)2 (12)17 (53)
     Refractory disease*9 (60)6 (40)15 (47)
    MIPI category (n)
     ≤3*15 (88)2 (12)17 (53)
     4–5*5 (56)4 (44)9 (28)
     >5*4 (67)2 (33)6 (19)
    • ↵* Percentage based on category total.

    • Data in parentheses are percentages.

    • View popup
    TABLE 3

    Comparison of 18F-FDG PET– and IWG-Assessed Responses

    18F-FDG PET results
    VariableCMR (n = 24)Non-CMR (n = 8)Total (n = 32)
    IWG best overall response on treatment (n)
     Complete response14 (58)014 (44)
     Partial response8 (33)6 (75)14 (44)
     Stable disease1 (4)2 (25)3 (9)
     Progressive or relapsed disease1 (4)01 (3)
    IWG best response by the end of cycle 3 (n)
     Complete response3 (13)03 (9)
     Partial response17 (71)6 (75)23 (72)
     Stable disease3 (13)2 (25)5 (16)
     Not evaluated1 (4)01 (3)
    IWG best response by the end of cycles 3 and 6 (n)
     Complete response15 (63)015 (47)
     Partial response8 (33)6 (75)14 (44)
     Stable disease02 (25)2 (6)
     Not evaluated1 (4)01 (3)
    IWG best overall response through 3-y follow-up* (n)
     Complete response18 (75)018 (57)
     Partial response5 (21)6 (75)11 (34)
     Stable disease02 (25)2 (6)
     Progressive or relapsed disease1 (4)01 (3)
    • ↵* New lymphoma treatments permitted during follow-up.

    • Data in parentheses are percentages.

    • View popup
    TABLE 4

    Metabolic and IWG Response for PFS, DOR, and OS

    Metabolic responseIWG best overall response
    VariableCMR (n = 24)Non-CMR (n = 8)CR + PR (n = 29)CR (n = 18)Stable disease, progressive disease, or relapsed disease (n = 3)
    PFS
     Median (95% CI) (mo)23.8 (17.2–41.5)10.7 (5.4–11.8)22.1 (16.2–38.4)38.4 (16.4–42.9)5.4 (2.4–11.8)
     Kaplan–Meier estimate at 12 mo (no. at risk)91.48 (21)12.50 (1)78.57 (22)100.00 (17)0.00 (0)
    DOR
     Median (95% CI) (mo)20.6 (14.6–38.8)7.8 (4.9–14.3)17.0 (13.3–35.5)35.5 (13.8–40.3)NA
     Kaplan–Meier estimate at 12 mo (no. at risk)86.36 (18)16.67 (1)71.43 (19)88.24 (15)NA
    OS
     Median (95% CI) (mo)NR (32.1–NR)14.2 (8.6–18.8)NR (28.9–NR)NR (32.1–NR)16.1 (8.6–NR)
     Kaplan–Meier estimate at 12 mo (no. at risk)100.00 (23)50.00 (4)89.29 (25)100.00 (17)66.67 (2)
    • CI = confidence interval; NA = not applicable; NR = not reached.

Additional Files

  • Figures
  • Tables
  • Supplemental Data

    Files in this Data Supplement:

    • Supplemental Data
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine: 58 (1)
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 58, Issue 1
January 1, 2017
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • 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.
18F-FDG PET for Measurement of Response and Prediction of Outcome to Relapsed or Refractory Mantle Cell Lymphoma Therapy with Bendamustine–Rituximab
(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 for Measurement of Response and Prediction of Outcome to Relapsed or Refractory Mantle Cell Lymphoma Therapy with Bendamustine–Rituximab
Dominick Lamonica, Daniel A. Graf, Mihaela C. Munteanu, Myron S. Czuczman
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Jan 2017, 58 (1) 62-68; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.116.173542

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
18F-FDG PET for Measurement of Response and Prediction of Outcome to Relapsed or Refractory Mantle Cell Lymphoma Therapy with Bendamustine–Rituximab
Dominick Lamonica, Daniel A. Graf, Mihaela C. Munteanu, Myron S. Czuczman
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Jan 2017, 58 (1) 62-68; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.116.173542
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

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

Related Articles

  • This Month in JNM
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Prognostic value of FDG-PET in patients with mantle cell lymphoma: results from the LyMa-PET Project
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

Oncology

  • The value of 18-FDG PET/CT as a supplemental screening method to overcome the challenges of dense breast imaging
  • False positive radioactive iodine uptake in Nabothian cyst in a patient with thyroid cancer.
  • Rediscovering the indispensable role of FDG PET in kidney cancer imaging
Show more Oncology

Clinical Investigation

  • 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

  • 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography
  • bendamustine
  • Rituximab
  • mantle cell lymphoma
SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire