Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The combined evaluation of interim contrast-enhanced computerized tomography (CT) and FDG-PET/CT predicts the clinical outcomes and may impact on the therapeutic plans in patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Annals of Hematology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We investigated the concomitant interim response of patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) using multi-detector row computerized tomography (CT) and 18F-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose-positron emission tomography (PET)/CT for prediction of clinical outcomes. One hundred six newly diagnosed patients with aggressive NHL were enrolled. Both the CT and PET/CT were serially performed at the time of diagnosis and after three to four cycles of chemotherapy (interim). The patients were categorized into four different responsive groups according to the interim PET/CT and CT: (1) complete metabolic response (CMR)–complete response unconfirmed (CRu), (2) CMR–partial response (PR), (3) partial metabolic response (PMR)–Cru, and (4) PMR–PR. Fifty-five patients with CMR–CRu, 20 patients with CMR–PR, seven patients with PMR–Cru, and 23 patients with PMR–PR were distributed. In addition, one patient experienced a disease progression. There was a significant difference in relapse rates between PET/CT-positive (67.3%) and PET/CT-negative patients (17.3%; P < 0.01). Also, there was a significant difference between patients with PMR–PR (32.0% and 26.1%) and CMR–CRu (89.3% and 80.0%) for 3-year overall survival (OS) and event-free survival (EFS), respectively. A multivariate analysis revealed that high international prognostic index (≥3) at diagnosis, T-cell phenotype, and PMR–PR in interim PET/CT and CT were independent prognostic significances for OS. Moreover, bulky disease (>10 cm), T-cell phenotype, and PMR–PR showed significant associations for EFS. PMR–PR in interim response was the predictive prognostic determinant for both OS and EFS, with a hazard ratio of 3.93 (1.61–9.60) and 3.60 (1.62–7.98), respectively. The combined evaluation of interim PET/CT and CT was found to be a significant predictor of disease progression, OS, and EFS.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Spaepen K, Stroobants S, Dupont P, Van Steenweghen S, Thomas J, Vandenberghe P et al (2001) Prognostic value of positron emission tomography (PET) with fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose ([18F]FDG) after first-line chemotherapy in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: is [18F]FDG-PET a valid alternative to conventional diagnostic methods? J Clin Oncol 19:414–419

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Jerusalem G, Beguin Y, Fassotte MF, Najjar F, Paulus P, Rigo P et al (1999) Whole-body positron emission tomography using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose for posttreatment evaluation in Hodgkin’s disease and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma has higher diagnostic and prognostic value than classical computed tomography scan imaging. Blood 94:429–433

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Mikhaeel NG, Timothy AR, O’Doherty MJ, Hain S, Maisey MN (2000) 18-FDG-PET as a prognostic indicator in the treatment of aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma—comparison with CT. Leuk Lymphoma 39:543–553

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Cheson BD, Horning SJ, Coiffier B, Shipp MA, Fisher RI, Connors JM et al (1999) Report of an international workshop to standardize response criteria for non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas. NCI Sponsored International Working Group. J Clin Oncol 17:1244

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Surbone A, Longo DL, DeVita VT Jr, Ihde DC, Duffey PL, Jaffe ES et al (1988) Residual abdominal masses in aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after combination chemotherapy: significance and management. J Clin Oncol 6:1832–1837

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Coiffier B, Gisselbrecht C, Herbrecht R, Tilly H, Bosly A, Brousse N (1989) LNH-84 regimen: a multicenter study of intensive chemotherapy in 737 patients with aggressive malignant lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 7:1018–1026

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Canellos GP (1988) Residual mass in lymphoma may not be residual disease. J Clin Oncol 6:931–933

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Kostakoglu L, Coleman M, Leonard JP, Kuji I, Zoe H, Goldsmith SJ (2002) PET predicts prognosis after 1 cycle of chemotherapy in aggressive lymphoma and Hodgkin’s disease. J Nucl Med 43:1018–1027

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kostakoglu L (2002) Noninvasive detection of multidrug resistance in patients with hematological malignancies: are we there yet? Clin Lymphoma 2:242–248

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Querellou S, Valette F, Bodet-Milin C, Oudoux A, Carlier T, Harousseau JL et al (2006) FDG-PET/CT predicts outcome in patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and Hodgkin’s disease. Ann Hematol 85:759–767 doi:10.1007/s00277-006-0151-z

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Picardi M, De Renzo A, Pane F, Nicolai E, Pacelli R, Salvatore M et al (2007) Randomized comparison of consolidation radiation versus observation in bulky Hodgkin’s lymphoma with post-chemotherapy negative positron emission tomography scans. Leuk Lymphoma 48:1721–1727 doi:10.1080/10428190701559140

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Zhao J, Qiao W, Wang C, Wang T, Xing Y (2007) Therapeutic evaluation and prognostic value of interim hybrid PET/CT with (18)F-FDG after three to four cycles of chemotherapy in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Hematology 12(5):423–430

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Fields PA, Mikhaeel G, Hutchings M, van der Walt J, Nunan T, Schey SA (2005) The prognostic value of interim positron emission tomography scans combined with immunohistochemical data in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Haematologica 90:1711–1713

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. (1993) A predictive model for aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The International Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Prognostic Factors Project. N Engl J Med 329:987–994. doi:10.1056/NEJM199309303291402

  15. Rosenwald A, Wright G, Chan WC, Connors JM, Campo E, Fisher RI et al (2002) The use of molecular profiling to predict survival after chemotherapy for diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma. N Engl J Med 346:1937–1947 doi:10.1056/NEJMoa012914

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Sehn LH, Berry B, Chhanabhai M, Fitzgerald C, Gill K, Hoskins P et al (2007) The revised International Prognostic Index (R-IPI) is a better predictor of outcome than the standard IPI for patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma treated with R-CHOP. Blood 109:1857–1861 doi:10.1182/blood-2006-08-038257

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Armitage JO, Weisenburger DD, Hutchins M, Moravec DF, Dowling M, Sorensen S et al (1986) Chemotherapy for diffuse large-cell lymphoma—rapidly responding patients have more durable remissions. J Clin Oncol 4:160–164

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Rodriguez-Catarino M, Jerkeman M, Ahlstrom H, Glimelius B, Hagberg H (2000) Residual mass in aggressive lymphoma–does size, measured by computed tomography, influence clinical outcome? Acta Oncol 39:485–489 doi:10.1080/028418600750013393

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Haioun C, Itti E, Rahmouni A, Brice P, Rain JD, Belhadj K et al (2005) [18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) in aggressive lymphoma: an early prognostic tool for predicting patient outcome. Blood 106:1376–1381 doi:10.1182/blood-2005-01-0272

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Mikhaeel NG, Hutchings M, Fields PA, O’Doherty MJ, Timothy AR (2005) FDG-PET after two to three cycles of chemotherapy predicts progression-free and overall survival in high-grade non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Ann Oncol 16:1514–1523 doi:10.1093/annonc/mdi272

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Hutchings M, Mikhaeel NG, Fields PA, Nunan T, Timothy AR (2005) Prognostic value of interim FDG-PET after two or three cycles of chemotherapy in Hodgkin lymphoma. Ann Oncol 16:1160–1168 doi:10.1093/annonc/mdi200

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Hutchings M, Loft A, Hansen M, Pedersen LM, Buhl T, Jurlander J et al (2006) FDG-PET after two cycles of chemotherapy predicts treatment failure and progression-free survival in Hodgkin lymphoma. Blood 107:52–59 doi:10.1182/blood-2005-06-2252

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Lapela M, Leskinen S, Minn HR, Lindholm P, Klemi PJ, Soderstrom KO et al (1995) Increased glucose metabolism in untreated non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: a study with positron emission tomography and fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose. Blood 86:3522–3527

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Schoder H, Noy A, Gonen M, Weng L, Green D, Erdi YE et al (2005) Intensity of 18fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in positron emission tomography distinguishes between indolent and aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 23:4643–4651 doi:10.1200/JCO.2005.12.072

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Reinhardt MJ, Herkel C, Altehoefer C, Finke J, Moser E (2005) Computed tomography and 18F-FDG positron emission tomography for therapy control of Hodgkin’s and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma patients: when do we really need FDG-PET? Ann Oncol 16:1524–1529 doi:10.1093/annonc/mdi271

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Castellucci P, Nanni C, Farsad M, Alinari L, Zinzani P, Stefoni V et al (2005) Potential pitfalls of 18F-FDG PET in a large series of patients treated for malignant lymphoma: prevalence and scan interpretation. Nucl Med Commun 26:689–694 doi:10.1097/01.mnm.0000171781.11027.bb

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Schoder H, Moskowitz C (2008) PET imaging for response assessment in lymphoma: potential and limitations. Radiol Clin North Am 46:225–241 doi:10.1016/j.rcl.2008.04.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Hematology-Oncology, Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital, 160 Ilsim-ri, Hwasun-eup, Hwasun-gun, Jeollanam-do, 519-809, Republic of Korea

    Deok-Hwan Yang, Jae-Sook Ahn, Yeo-Kyeoung Kim, Sang-Hee Cho, Ik-Joo Chung, Hyeoung-Joon Kim & Je-Jung Lee

  2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital, Hwasun, Jeollanam-do, Republic of Korea

    Jung-Joon Min & Hee-Seung Bom

  3. Department of Radiology, Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital, Hwasun, Jeollanam-do, Republic of Korea

    Yong Yeon Jeong

  4. The Brain Korea 21 Project, Center for Biomedical Human Resources at Chonnam National University, Gwangju, Republic of Korea

    Jung-Joon Min, Yong Yeon Jeong, Sang-Hee Cho, Ik-Joo Chung, Hee-Seung Bom, Hyeoung-Joon Kim & Je-Jung Lee

Authors
  1. Deok-Hwan Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jung-Joon Min
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yong Yeon Jeong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jae-Sook Ahn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yeo-Kyeoung Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Sang-Hee Cho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ik-Joo Chung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Hee-Seung Bom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Hyeoung-Joon Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Je-Jung Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Je-Jung Lee.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Yang, DH., Min, JJ., Jeong, Y.Y. et al. The combined evaluation of interim contrast-enhanced computerized tomography (CT) and FDG-PET/CT predicts the clinical outcomes and may impact on the therapeutic plans in patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Ann Hematol 88, 425–432 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00277-008-0616-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00277-008-0616-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation