FDG-PET Lymphoma Demonstration Project Invitational Workshop

Kelloff, Gary J.; Sullivan, Daniel M.; Wilson, Wyndham H.; Cheson, Bruce D.; Juweid, Malik E.; Mills, George Q.; Zelenetz, Andrew D.; Horning, Sandra J.; Weber, Wolfgang; Sargent, Daniel J.; Dodd, Lori E.; Korn, Edward L.; Armitage, Jamés O.; Schilsky, Richard L.; Christian, Michaele C.; O’Connor, Owen A.; Wang, Sue Jane; Farrell, Ann T.; Pazdur, Richard; Graham, Michael M.; Wahl, Richard L.; Larson, Steven M.; Kostakoğlu, Lale; Daube-Witherspoon, Margaret E.; Gastonis, Constantine; Siegel, Barry A.; Shankar, Lalitha; Lee, David B.; Higley, Howard R.; Sigman, Caroline C.; Carucci, Daniel J.; Timko, David; DeGennaro, Louis J.; Sigal, Ellen V.; Barker, Anna D.; Woodcock, Janet

doi:10.1016/j.acra.2006.12.003

Cited by 26 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…28,29 Early interim FDG-PET has already proven to overshadow the prognostic value of the International Prognostic Score and appears to be the single most important tool for planning risk-adapted treatment in advanced HD. 30 …”

Section: Fdg-petmentioning

confidence: 99%

Imaging in staging of malignant lymphoma: a systematic review

Kwee

Nievelstein

2008

Blood

229

145

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionThe malignant lymphomas, Hodgkin disease (HD) and nonHodgkin lymphoma (NHL), comprise approximately 5% to 6% of all malignancies and are the fifth most frequently occurring type of cancer in the United States. In 2007, an estimated 9260 new cases of HD and 81 850 new cases of NHL will be diagnosed in the United States. 1 Once the diagnosis HD or NHL has been established by biopsy of a particular site, determination of disease extent (staging) is important for appropriate treatment planning and determining prognosis. In addition, knowing the sites of involvement at time of diagnosis makes it possible to accurately restage at the end of therapy and document a complete remission. 2,3 Staging of HD and NHL is based on the Ann Arbor classification with the addition of a definition of bulky disease often referred to as the Cotswold modification (Table 1). This staging system encompasses the number of sites of disease involved, the type of involvement (nodal or extranodal), and the distribution of disease. 4 Computed tomography (CT) is currently the most commonly used means for staging patients with malignant lymphoma. 2,3 However, CT lacks functional information, which impedes identification of disease in normal-sized organs. 18 F-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) may be an alternative to CT. 5,6 Other promising alternatives to CT are FDG-PET/CT fusion 7,8 and whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI). 9,10 The purpose of this study is to provide an up-to-date overview of the diagnostic performance of CT, FDG-PET, FDG-PET/CT fusion, and WB-MRI in staging of malignant lymphoma.In the first part of this article, technical aspects and procedures of each imaging modality are summarized. Subsequently, we describe our literature search strategy, study selection methods, and study analysis. Next, literature search results and results of analyzed articles are demonstrated. Finally, results are discussed, and advantages, drawbacks, and limitations of each imaging technique are outlined. Technical aspects and procedures CTBefore the CT era, patients with a diagnosis of malignant lymphoma were subjected to a battery of radiologic studies that included chest radiography, intravenous pyelography, lymphangiography, skeletal surveys, and isotope scans. On top of this, most patients with HD underwent staging laparotomy with its attendant risks. 11 The introduction of CT in the early 1970s was a tremendous breakthrough in noninvasive imaging, and its potential for staging malignant lymphoma was soon recognized and investigated. 12 Since then, CT has gradually become the imaging modality of choice for staging malignant lymphoma. CT technology has continuously been developed and refined; major milestones include the introduction of spiral CT in the early 1990s and the advent of multidetector-row CT in 1998. The concept of multidetector-row CT deserves special attention; multidetector-row CT scanners have multiple (X) data acquisition systems connected to multidetector arrays to provide a multi...

show abstract

Section: Fdg-petmentioning

confidence: 99%

Imaging in staging of malignant lymphoma: a systematic review

Kwee

Nievelstein

2008

Blood

229

145

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…At our institution, we follow the National Cancer Institute guidelines for image preparation, acquisition, and analysis. [32][33][34] We used the maximum SUV because it is reproducible, unlike mean SUV, and reporting of maximum SUV is the standard at our institutions. We…”

Section: Suv Calculationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The higher the decrease in the standardized uptake value of positron emission tomography after chemoradiation, the better the survival of patients with gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma

Javeri

Xiao

Rohren

et al. 2009

Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND:Postchemoradiation percentage decrease in standardized uptake value (SUV) of positron emission tomography (PET) from baseline correlates with overall survival (OS) and pathologic response. Analyses of dichotomized data are commonly reported. The authors analyzed percentage SUV decrease as both dichotomized and continuous variables.METHODS:The authors assessed 151 consecutive patients with gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma who had chemoradiation and surgery. Baseline and postchemoradiation PET/computed tomography imaging was performed. The log‐rank test and Cox proportional hazards models were used to associate percentage SUV changes and OS, and logistic regression models were used to detect the association between percentage SUV changes and pathologic response.RESULTS:A >52% SUV decrease (dichotomized analysis) was associated with a longer OS (log‐rank test, P = .023). The univariate Cox proportional hazards model indicated that greater percentage SUV decrease (as a continuous variable) was associated with a lower risk of death (hazard ratio [HR], 0.99; P = .01). Pathologic response (≤50% residual cancer) was associated with longer OS (P = .003). Patients with chemoradiation resistance (>50% residual cancer) tended to have a higher risk of death than those with chemoradiation sensitivity (0‐50% residual cancer; HR, 2.12; P = .099). In the multivariate model, the percentage SUV decrease (as a continuous variable) was the only prognosticator of OS (P = .01). The percentage SUV decrease was nonsignificantly associated with pathologic complete response (univariate odds ratio [OR], 1.01; P = .06 and multivariate OR, 1.03; P = .07).CONCLUSIONS:The greater the decline in SUV after chemoradiation, the longer is the OS of gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma patients. The percentage SUV decrease as a continuous variable is a better prognosticator of OS than its dichotomized assessments. Cancer 2009. © 2009 American Cancer Society.

show abstract

“…Because of these limitations of visual assessment of tumor response, there is considerable interest in using quantitative parameters for monitoring response to therapy in lymphoma patients (16). Quantification of tumor 18 F-FDG uptake has the potential to provide less observer-dependent and less arbitrary criteria for a positive PET scan.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

18F-FDG PET in Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma: Qualitative or Quantitative?

Weber¹

2007

Journal of Nuclear Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

FDG-PET Lymphoma Demonstration Project Invitational Workshop

Cited by 26 publications

References 17 publications

Imaging in staging of malignant lymphoma: a systematic review

Imaging in staging of malignant lymphoma: a systematic review

The higher the decrease in the standardized uptake value of positron emission tomography after chemoradiation, the better the survival of patients with gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma

18F-FDG PET in Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma: Qualitative or Quantitative?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About