Cargando…

On the Added Value of Baseline FDG-PET in Malignant Lymphoma

PURPOSE: The added value of baseline positron emission tomography (PET) scans in therapy evaluation in malignant lymphoma is unclear. In guidelines, baseline PET is recommended but not mandatory except in lymphoma types with variable fluoro-d-glucose uptake. The aim of the present study was to test...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Quarles van Ufford, Henriette, Hoekstra, Otto, de Haas, Marie, Fijnheer, Rob, Wittebol, Shulamiet, Tieks, Bianca, Kramer, Mark, de Klerk, John
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer-Verlag 2009
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2844531/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19809855
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11307-009-0259-3
_version_ 1782179313511038976
author Quarles van Ufford, Henriette
Hoekstra, Otto
de Haas, Marie
Fijnheer, Rob
Wittebol, Shulamiet
Tieks, Bianca
Kramer, Mark
de Klerk, John
author_facet Quarles van Ufford, Henriette
Hoekstra, Otto
de Haas, Marie
Fijnheer, Rob
Wittebol, Shulamiet
Tieks, Bianca
Kramer, Mark
de Klerk, John
author_sort Quarles van Ufford, Henriette
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: The added value of baseline positron emission tomography (PET) scans in therapy evaluation in malignant lymphoma is unclear. In guidelines, baseline PET is recommended but not mandatory except in lymphoma types with variable fluoro-d-glucose uptake. The aim of the present study was to test the hypothesis that adding baseline PET information decreases false positive readings with posttreatment PET and improves observer agreement. METHODS: Forty-four patients (mean age 56 years, standard deviation 14) with malignant lymphoma were included. Two nuclear medicine physicians retrospectively and independently evaluated the posttreatment PET, 3 weeks later followed by paired reading of baseline and posttreatment PET. For each PET, 22 regions were classified as positive, negative, or equivocal, resulting in an overall PET score of positive, unclear, or negative. In case of discrepancies, consensus was reached. RESULTS: Addition of baseline to posttreatment PET evaluation affected the classification of metabolic response in 34% of malignant lymphoma patients treated with first-line chemotherapy. In one out of seven patients, addition of the baseline PET lead to opposite conclusions (95% confidence interval 4–14). False positivity was reduced by adding the baseline scan information, but the effect on false negativity was similar. In addition, the amount of unclear classifications halved after paired reading. Observer agreement did not improve upon adding the baseline PET data. CONCLUSION: Without any other clinical information, pretreatment PET facilitates changes the interpretation of a posttreatment PET in a third of the patients, resulting in both upgrading and downgrading of the posttreatment situation of a malignant lymphoma patient. If these results are confirmed for PET–computed tomography systems, they favor the addition of baseline PET to the current work-up of patients with malignant lymphoma.
format Text
id pubmed-2844531
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2009
publisher Springer-Verlag
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-28445312010-03-26 On the Added Value of Baseline FDG-PET in Malignant Lymphoma Quarles van Ufford, Henriette Hoekstra, Otto de Haas, Marie Fijnheer, Rob Wittebol, Shulamiet Tieks, Bianca Kramer, Mark de Klerk, John Mol Imaging Biol Research Article PURPOSE: The added value of baseline positron emission tomography (PET) scans in therapy evaluation in malignant lymphoma is unclear. In guidelines, baseline PET is recommended but not mandatory except in lymphoma types with variable fluoro-d-glucose uptake. The aim of the present study was to test the hypothesis that adding baseline PET information decreases false positive readings with posttreatment PET and improves observer agreement. METHODS: Forty-four patients (mean age 56 years, standard deviation 14) with malignant lymphoma were included. Two nuclear medicine physicians retrospectively and independently evaluated the posttreatment PET, 3 weeks later followed by paired reading of baseline and posttreatment PET. For each PET, 22 regions were classified as positive, negative, or equivocal, resulting in an overall PET score of positive, unclear, or negative. In case of discrepancies, consensus was reached. RESULTS: Addition of baseline to posttreatment PET evaluation affected the classification of metabolic response in 34% of malignant lymphoma patients treated with first-line chemotherapy. In one out of seven patients, addition of the baseline PET lead to opposite conclusions (95% confidence interval 4–14). False positivity was reduced by adding the baseline scan information, but the effect on false negativity was similar. In addition, the amount of unclear classifications halved after paired reading. Observer agreement did not improve upon adding the baseline PET data. CONCLUSION: Without any other clinical information, pretreatment PET facilitates changes the interpretation of a posttreatment PET in a third of the patients, resulting in both upgrading and downgrading of the posttreatment situation of a malignant lymphoma patient. If these results are confirmed for PET–computed tomography systems, they favor the addition of baseline PET to the current work-up of patients with malignant lymphoma. Springer-Verlag 2009-10-07 2010 /pmc/articles/PMC2844531/ /pubmed/19809855 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11307-009-0259-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2009 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Quarles van Ufford, Henriette
Hoekstra, Otto
de Haas, Marie
Fijnheer, Rob
Wittebol, Shulamiet
Tieks, Bianca
Kramer, Mark
de Klerk, John
On the Added Value of Baseline FDG-PET in Malignant Lymphoma
title On the Added Value of Baseline FDG-PET in Malignant Lymphoma
title_full On the Added Value of Baseline FDG-PET in Malignant Lymphoma
title_fullStr On the Added Value of Baseline FDG-PET in Malignant Lymphoma
title_full_unstemmed On the Added Value of Baseline FDG-PET in Malignant Lymphoma
title_short On the Added Value of Baseline FDG-PET in Malignant Lymphoma
title_sort on the added value of baseline fdg-pet in malignant lymphoma
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2844531/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19809855
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11307-009-0259-3
work_keys_str_mv AT quarlesvanuffordhenriette ontheaddedvalueofbaselinefdgpetinmalignantlymphoma
AT hoekstraotto ontheaddedvalueofbaselinefdgpetinmalignantlymphoma
AT dehaasmarie ontheaddedvalueofbaselinefdgpetinmalignantlymphoma
AT fijnheerrob ontheaddedvalueofbaselinefdgpetinmalignantlymphoma
AT wittebolshulamiet ontheaddedvalueofbaselinefdgpetinmalignantlymphoma
AT tieksbianca ontheaddedvalueofbaselinefdgpetinmalignantlymphoma
AT kramermark ontheaddedvalueofbaselinefdgpetinmalignantlymphoma
AT deklerkjohn ontheaddedvalueofbaselinefdgpetinmalignantlymphoma