PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Ricard, Fabien
AU  - Cheson, Bruce
AU  - Barrington, Sally
AU  - Trotman, Judith
AU  - Schmid, Annette
AU  - Brueggenwerth, Guenther
AU  - Salles, Gilles
AU  - Schwartz, Larry
AU  - Goldmacher, Greg
AU  - Jarecha, Rudresh
AU  - Narang, Jayant
AU  - Broussais, Florence
AU  - Galette, Paul
AU  - Liu, Min
AU  - Bajpai, Surabhi
AU  - Perlman, Eric
AU  - Gillis, Julie
AU  - Smalberg, Ira
AU  - Terve, Pierre
AU  - Zahlmann, Gudrun
AU  - Korn, Ron
TI  - Application of the Lugano Classification for Initial Evaluation, Staging, and Response Assessment of Hodgkin and Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma: The PRoLoG Consensus Initiative (Part 1—Clinical)
AID  - 10.2967/jnumed.122.264106
DP  - 2023 Jan 01
TA  - Journal of Nuclear Medicine
PG  - 102--108
VI  - 64
IP  - 1
4099  - http://jnm.snmjournals.org/content/64/1/102.short
4100  - http://jnm.snmjournals.org/content/64/1/102.full
SO  - J Nucl Med2023 Jan 01; 64
AB  - Our objective was to provide consensus recommendations from a consortium of academic and industry experts in the field of lymphoma and imaging for consistent application of the Lugano classification. Methods: Consensus was obtained through a series of meetings from July 2019 until September 2021 sponsored by the Pharma Imaging Network for Therapeutics and Diagnostics (PINTaD) as part of the PINTaD Response Criteria in Lymphoma Working Group (PRoLoG) consensus initiative. Results: Consensus recommendations clarified technical considerations for PET/CT and diagnostic CT from the Lugano classification, including updating the FDG avidity of different lymphoma entities, clarifying the response nomenclature, and refining lesion classification and scoring, especially with regard to scores 4 and 5 and the X category of the 5-point scale. Combination of metabolic and anatomic responses is clarified, as well as response assessment in cases of discordant or missing evaluations. Use of clinical data in the classification, especially the requirement for bone marrow assessment, is further updated on the basis of lymphoma entities. Clarification is provided with regard to spleen and liver measurements and evaluation, as well as nodal response. Conclusion: Consensus recommendations are made to comprehensively address areas of inconsistency and ambiguity in the classification encountered during response evaluation by end users, and such guidance should be used as a companion to the 2014 Lugano classification.