RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 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)
JF Journal of Nuclear Medicine
JO J Nucl Med
FD Society of Nuclear Medicine
SP 102
OP 108
DO 10.2967/jnumed.122.264106
VO 64
IS 1
A1 Ricard, Fabien
A1 Cheson, Bruce
A1 Barrington, Sally
A1 Trotman, Judith
A1 Schmid, Annette
A1 Brueggenwerth, Guenther
A1 Salles, Gilles
A1 Schwartz, Larry
A1 Goldmacher, Greg
A1 Jarecha, Rudresh
A1 Narang, Jayant
A1 Broussais, Florence
A1 Galette, Paul
A1 Liu, Min
A1 Bajpai, Surabhi
A1 Perlman, Eric
A1 Gillis, Julie
A1 Smalberg, Ira
A1 Terve, Pierre
A1 Zahlmann, Gudrun
A1 Korn, Ron
YR 2023
UL http://jnm.snmjournals.org/content/64/1/102.abstract
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.