Cargando…

Multicenter Comparison of Contrast-Enhanced FDG PET/CT and 64-Slice Multi–Detector-Row CT for Initial Staging and Response Evaluation at the End of Treatment in Patients With Lymphoma

OBJECTIVES: To compare staging correctness between contrast-enhanced FDG PET/ceCT and 64-slice multi–detector-row CT (ceCT64) for initial staging and response evaluation at the end of treatment (EOT) in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma, diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL), and follicular lymphoma. M...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gómez León, Nieves, Delgado-Bolton, Roberto C., del Campo del Val, Lourdes, Cabezas, Beatriz, Arranz, Reyes, García, Marta, Cannata, Jimena, González Ortega, Saturnino, Pérez Sáez, Mª Ángeles, López-Botet, Begoña, Rodríguez-Vigil, Beatriz, Mateo, Marta, Colletti, Patrick M., Rubello, Domenico, Carreras, José L.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5502123/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28604477
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/RLU.0000000000001718
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVES: To compare staging correctness between contrast-enhanced FDG PET/ceCT and 64-slice multi–detector-row CT (ceCT64) for initial staging and response evaluation at the end of treatment (EOT) in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma, diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL), and follicular lymphoma. METHODS: This prospective study compared initial staging and response evaluation at EOT. One hundred eighty-one patients were randomly assigned to either ceCT64 or FDG PET/ceCT. A nuclear medicine physician and a radiologist read FDG PET/ceCT scans independently and achieved post hoc consensus, whereas another independent radiologist interpreted ceCT64 separately. The reference standard included all clinical information, all tests, and follow-up. Ethics committees of the participating centers approved the study, and all participants provided written consent. RESULTS: Ninety-one patients were randomized to ceCT64 and 90 to FDG PET/ceCT; 72 had Hodgkin lymphoma, 72 had DLBCL, and 37 had follicular lymphoma. There was excellent correlation between the reference standard and initial staging for both FDG PET/ceCT (κ = 0.96) and ceCT64 (κ = 0.84), although evaluation of the response at EOT was excellent only for FDG PET/ceCT (κ = 0.91). CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated satisfactory agreement between FDG PET/ceCT (κ = 0.96) and ceCT64 (κ = 0.84) in initial staging compared with the reference standard (P = 0.16). Response evaluation at EOT with FDG PET/ceCT (κ = 0.91) was superior compared with ceCT64 (κ = 0.307) (P < 0.001).