Article Figures & Data
Figures
- FIGURE 1.
Flow of patients in terms of iPET assessments and resulting subpopulations. DS = Deauville score.
- FIGURE 2.
(A) Concordance between ΔSUVmax and Deauville score cutoff. (B) Kaplan–Meier event-free survival curves by concordance category. DS = Deauville score; EFS = event-free survival.
- FIGURE 3.
AUC (A) and Cox regression hazard ratio (B; logarithmic scale) with 95% CI by method and time-to-event endpoint. DS = Deauville score; EFS = event-free survival; HR = hazard ratio; OS = overall survival; PFS = progression-free survival; TTP = time to progression.
- FIGURE 4.
Kaplan–Meier event-free survival curves by iPET response according to ΔSUVmax (A) and Deauville score (B). DS = Deauville score; EFS = event-free survival.
Tables
- TABLE 1
Characteristics for All Evaluable Patients by Subpopulations Defined by Cutoffs for the 2 Methods
Characteristics All evaluable ΔSUVmax > 66% ΔSUVmax ≤ 66% DS ≤ 3 DS > 3 No. of patients 596 534 62 326 270 Median age (y) 62 (IQR, 51–70) 62 (IQR, 51–70) 62 (IQR, 50–69) 62 (IQR, 52–70) 61 (IQR, 50–70) Age > 60 y (n) 308 (51.8%) 274 (51.4%) 34 (54.8%) 174 (53.5%) 134 (49.6%) Male sex (n) 331 (55.5%) 294 (55.1%) 37 (59.7%) 185 (56.7%) 146 (54.1%) ECOG performance status ≥ 2 (n) 59 (9.9%) 47 (8.8%) 12 (19.4%) 23 (7.1%) 36 (13.3%) Ann Arbor stage III or IV (n) 349 (58.7%) 304 (57.0%) 45 (72.6%) 173 (53.2%) 176 (65.2%) Extranodal sites > 1 (n) 192 (32.3%) 166 (31.1%) 26 (41.9%) 94 (28.9%) 98 (36.3%) Lactate dehydrogenase > ULN (n) 329 (55.3%) 289 (54.2%) 40 (64.5%) 151 (46.5%) 178 (65.9%) International Prognostic Index (n) Low risk 219 (36.8%) 205 (38.5%) 14 (22.6%) 140 (43.1%) 79 (29.3%) Low to intermediate risk 155 (26.1%) 137 (25.7%) 18 (29.0%) 83 (25.5%) 72 (26.7%) High to intermediate risk 124 (20.8%) 110 (20.6%) 14 (22.6%) 61 (18.8%) 63 (23.3%) High risk 97 (16.3%) 81 (15.2%) 16 (25.8%) 41 (12.6%) 56 (20.7%) DS = Deauville score; IQR = interquartile range; ECOG = Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; ULN = upper limit of normal.
Data on International Prognostic Index was not available for 1 patient with ΔSUVmax > 66% and DS > 3.
Supplemental Data
Files in this Data Supplement:
Jump to section
Related Articles
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