Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

F-18 FDG-PET imaging and correlation with CT in staging and follow-up of pediatric lymphomas

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Pediatric Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

We hypothesized that F-18 FDG-PET could be a useful, functional imaging modality for assessing the initial staging, response to therapy and follow-up of children diagnosed with lymphoma.

Objective

To assess the role of whole-body F-18 FDG-PET imaging in patients with lymphoma as an initial staging modality and to measure its predictive value for monitoring the response to therapy and disease recurrence compared to CT and clinical follow-up studies.

Materials and methods

As part of their routine clinical care, 24 patients with histologically proven lymphoma (18 Hodgkin disease and 6 non-Hodgkin lymphoma) underwent an F-18 FDG-PET and a CT scan. A total of 28 studies were performed and the entire set of scans retrospectively reviewed. Seven studies were performed for initial staging, 12 for monitoring therapy response and 9 for detecting recurrence. Initial diagnosis was confirmed by histopathology while the gold standard at follow-up was established by clinical follow-up, additional imaging modalities and/or biopsy. F-18 FDG-PET was visually compared to CT on a lesion-by-lesion basis. Fifteen anatomic regions (seven nodal and eight extranodal) were analyzed.

Results

Of the 414 regions analyzed, PET and CT were concordant in 366 (positive in 16 and negative in 350). Discordance was found in 48 regions. Overall sensitivities, specificities, and positive and negative predictive values were 78%, 98%, 94% and 90% for F-18 FDG-PET and 79%, 88%, 90% and 46% for CT, respectively.

Conclusion

F-18 FDG-PET imaging is a useful technique for the staging and follow-up of pediatric patients with lymphoma.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Magnani C, Gatta G, Coriazzari I, et al (2001) Childhood malignancies in the EUROCARE study: the database and the methods of survival analysis. Eur J Cancer 37:678–686

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Hudson MM, Donaldson SS (1997) Hodgkin’s disease. Pediatr Clin North Am 44:891–906

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Sandlund JT, Downing JR, Crist WM (1996) Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in childhood. N Engl J Med 334:1238–1248

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Edwards BK, Brown ML, Wingo PA, et al (2005) Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975–2002, featuring population-based trends in cancer treatment. J Natl Cancer Inst 97:1407–1427

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Brousse N, Vasiliu V, Michon J (2004) Pediatric non-Hodgkin lymphomas. Ann Pathol 24:574–586

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Thomson AB, Wallace WH (2002) Treatment of paediatric Hodgkin’s disease: a balance of risks. Eur J Cancer 38:468–477

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Pinkerton CR (1999) The continuing challenge of treatment for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in children. Br J Haematol 107:220–234

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Reske SN (2003) PET and restaging of malignant lymphoma including residual masses and relapse. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 30:S89–S96

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Schiepers C, Filmont FE, Czernin J (2003) PET for staging of Hodgkin’s disease and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 30:S82–S88

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Schoder H, Larson SM, Yeung HW (2004) PET/CT in oncology: integration into clinical management of lymphoma, melanoma, and gastrointestinal malignancies. J Nucl Med 45:72S–81S

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kumar R, Xiu Y, Potenta S, et al (2004) 18F-FDG PET for evaluation of the treatment response in patients with gastrointestinal tract lymphomas. J Nucl Med 45:1796–1803

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Elstrom R, Guan L, Baker G, et al (2003) Utility of FDG-PET scanning in lymphoma by WHO classification. Blood 101:3875–3876

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Depas G, De Barsy C, Jerusalem G, et al (2005) 18F-FDG PET in children with lymphomas. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 32:31–38

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hermann S, Wormanns D, Pixberg M, et al (2005) Staging in childhood lymphoma: differences between FDG-PET and CT. Nuklearmedizin 44:1–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Munker R, Glass J, Griffeth LK, et al (2004) Contribution of PET imaging to the initial staging and prognosis of patients with Hodgkin’s disease. Ann Oncol 15:1699–1704

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Zinzani PL, Fanti S, Battista G, et al (2004) Predictive role of positron emission tomography (PET) in the outcome of lymphoma patients. Br J Cancer 91:850–854

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Brenot-Rossi I, Bouabdallah R, Di Stefano D, et al (2001) Hodgkin’s disease: prognostic role of gallium scintigraphy after chemotherapy. Eur J Nucl Med 28:1482–1488

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Front D, Bar-Shalom R, Mor M, et al (2000) Aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma: early prediction of outcome with 67Ga scintigraphy. Radiology 214:253–257

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Rini JN, Nunez R, Nichols R, et al (2005) Coincidence-detection FDG-PET versus gallium in children and young adults with newly diagnosed Hodgkin’s disease. Pediatr Radiol 35:169–178

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kaste SC, Howard SC, McCarville EB, et al (2005) 18F-FDG-avid sites mimicking active disease in pediatric Hodgkin’s. Pediatr Radiol 35:141–154

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Weinblatt ME, Zanzi I, Belakhlef A, et al (1997) False-positive FDG-PET imaging of the thymus of a child with Hodgkin’s disease. J Nucl Med 38:888–890

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Bangerter M, Moog F, Buchmann I, et al (1998) Whole-body 2-[18F]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) for accurate staging of Hodgkin’s disease. Ann Oncol 9:1117–1122

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Wickmann L, Luders H, Dorffel W (2003) 18-FDG-PET-findings in children and adolescents with Hodgkin’s disease: retrospective evaluation of the correlation to other imaging procedures in initial staging and to the predictive value of follow-up examinations. Klin Padiatr 215:146–150

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Pinkerton R (2005) Continuing challenges in childhood non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Br J Haematol 130:480–488

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Weihrauch MR, Re D, Scheidhauer K, et al (2001) Thoracic positron emission tomography using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose for the evaluation of residual mediastinal Hodgkin disease. Blood 98:2930–2934

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Montravers F, McNamara D, Landman-Parker J, et al (2002) [(18)F]FDG in childhood lymphoma: clinical utility and impact on management. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 29:1155–1165

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Kostakoglu L, Goldsmith SJ (2000) Fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the staging and follow-up of lymphoma: is it time to shift gears? Eur J Nucl Med 27:1564–1578

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Moog F, Bangerter M, Diederichs CG, et al (1998) Extranodal malignant lymphoma: detection with FDG PET versus CT. Radiology 206:475–481

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Spaepen K, Stroobants S, Dupont P, et al (2001) Can positron emission tomography with [(18)F]-fluorodeoxyglucose after first-line treatment distinguish Hodgkin’s disease patients who need additional therapy from others in whom additional therapy would mean avoidable toxicity? Br J Haematol 115:272–278

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Miguel Hernandez-Pampaloni

  2. Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, 400 Spruce St., Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA

    Amol Takalkar, Jian Q. Yu, Hongming Zhuang & Abass Alavi

Authors
  1. Miguel Hernandez-Pampaloni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amol Takalkar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jian Q. Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hongming Zhuang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Abass Alavi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abass Alavi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hernandez-Pampaloni, M., Takalkar, A., Yu, J.Q. et al. F-18 FDG-PET imaging and correlation with CT in staging and follow-up of pediatric lymphomas. Pediatr Radiol 36, 524–531 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-006-0152-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-006-0152-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation