1
|
Díaz-Silván A, Otón-Sánchez L, Caresia-Aróztegui A, Cózar-Santiago MDP, Orcajo-Rincón J, de Arcocha-Torres M, Delgado-Bolton R, Cabello-García D. Aplicación clínica de la [18F]FDG PET/TC en el linfoma folicular. Rev Esp Med Nucl Imagen Mol 2022. [DOI: 10.1016/j.remn.2022.03.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/18/2022]
|
2
|
Díaz-Silván A, Otón-Sánchez LF, Caresia-Aróztegui AP, Del Puig Cózar-Santiago M, Orcajo-Rincón J, de Arcocha-Torres M, Delgado-Bolton RC, Cabello-García D. Clinical application of [ 18F]FDG PET/CT in follicular lymphoma. Rev Esp Med Nucl Imagen Mol 2022; 41:202-212. [PMID: 35490105 DOI: 10.1016/j.remnie.2022.03.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/17/2022] [Accepted: 03/02/2022] [Indexed: 10/18/2022]
Abstract
The objective of the present paper was to review the clinical application of [18F]FDG PET/CT in follicular lymphoma (FL). Once it was clear that, despite it is characterized as indolent, this type of lymphoma usually shows a high [18F]FDG avidity, PET/CT became more important and it's now considered the standard technique in staging, re-staging and response evaluation. Many studies have shown its impact on the management of patients (as it can change the stage in a significant proportion of cases and lead to treatment modifications), its superiority over CT (mainly because it's able to distinguish fibrosis in residual masses from viable tumor) and its prognostic value. The latter was initially associated only to the degree of metabolic response, which has proved to be a strong and independent predictive factor in terms of disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Thus, a negative PET/CT scan could be considered a guarantee in high-tumor-burden follicular lymphoma patients. However, semiquantitative parameters such as metabolic tumor volume or total lesion glycolysis, may also provide useful information and help us to identify patients with poor prognosis, guiding a risk-adjusted management and follow-up.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A Díaz-Silván
- Programa de Doctorado en Ciencias de La Salud, Universidad de La Laguna (ULL), Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Islas Canarias, Spain; Servicio de Medicina Nuclear, Hospital Universitario Nuestra Señora de Candelaria, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Islas Canarias, Spain.
| | - L F Otón-Sánchez
- Programa de Doctorado en Ciencias de La Salud, Universidad de La Laguna (ULL), Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Islas Canarias, Spain; Departamento de Medicina Física y Farmacología, Universidad de La Laguna (ULL), Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Islas Canarias, Spain; Servicio de Oncología Radioterápica, Hospital Universitario de Canarias, La Laguna, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Islas Canarias, Spain
| | - A P Caresia-Aróztegui
- Servicio de Medicina Nuclear, Parc Taulí Hospital Universitari, Institut d'Investigació i Innovació Parc Taulí (I3PT), Sabadell, Barcelona, Spain
| | | | - J Orcajo-Rincón
- Servicio de Medicina Nuclear, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain
| | - M de Arcocha-Torres
- Unidad de Radiofarmacia, Hospital Universitario Marqués de Valdecilla, Santander, Cantabria, Spain
| | - R C Delgado-Bolton
- Department of Diagnostic Imaging (Radiology) and Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital San Pedro and Centre for Biomedical Research of La Rioja (CIBIR), Logroño, La Rioja, Spain
| | - D Cabello-García
- Servicio de Medicina Nuclear, Hospital Universitario Nuestra Señora de Candelaria, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Islas Canarias, Spain
| | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Milgrom SA, Rechner L, Berthelsen A. The optimal use of PET/CT in the management of lymphoma patients. Br J Radiol 2021; 94:20210470. [PMID: 34415777 DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20210470] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/05/2022] Open
Abstract
18F-fluoro-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) scans play an important role in the management of lymphoma patients. They are critical to accurately stage disease and assess its response to therapy. In addition, PET/CT scans enable precise target delineation for radiation therapy planning. In this review, we describe the use of PET/CT scans in lymphoma, with a focus on their role in staging disease, assessing response to therapy, predicting prognosis, and planning RT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Laura Rechner
- Department of Oncology, Section of Radiotherapy, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Anne Berthelsen
- Department of Oncology, Section of Radiotherapy, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Lapa C, Nestle U, Albert NL, Baues C, Beer A, Buck A, Budach V, Bütof R, Combs SE, Derlin T, Eiber M, Fendler WP, Furth C, Gani C, Gkika E, Grosu AL, Henkenberens C, Ilhan H, Löck S, Marnitz-Schulze S, Miederer M, Mix M, Nicolay NH, Niyazi M, Pöttgen C, Rödel CM, Schatka I, Schwarzenboeck SM, Todica AS, Weber W, Wegen S, Wiegel T, Zamboglou C, Zips D, Zöphel K, Zschaeck S, Thorwarth D, Troost EGC. Value of PET imaging for radiation therapy. Strahlenther Onkol 2021; 197:1-23. [PMID: 34259912 DOI: 10.1007/s00066-021-01812-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/01/2021] [Accepted: 06/09/2021] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
This comprehensive review written by experts in their field gives an overview on the current status of incorporating positron emission tomography (PET) into radiation treatment planning. Moreover, it highlights ongoing studies for treatment individualisation and per-treatment tumour response monitoring for various primary tumours. Novel tracers and image analysis methods are discussed. The authors believe this contribution to be of crucial value for experts in the field as well as for policy makers deciding on the reimbursement of this powerful imaging modality.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Constantin Lapa
- Nuclear Medicine, Medical Faculty, University of Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany
| | - Ursula Nestle
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Kliniken Maria Hilf, Mönchengladbach, Germany
| | - Nathalie L Albert
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Christian Baues
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cyberknife and Radiotherapy, Medical Faculty, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Ambros Beer
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Ulm University Hospital, Ulm, Germany
| | - Andreas Buck
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany
| | - Volker Budach
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Berlin, Germany
| | - Rebecca Bütof
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
- OncoRay-National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
| | - Stephanie E Combs
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Munich, Munich, Germany
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany
- Department of Radiation Sciences (DRS), Institute of Radiation Medicine (IRM), Neuherberg, Germany
| | - Thorsten Derlin
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany
| | - Matthias Eiber
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany
| | - Wolfgang P Fendler
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Duisburg-Essen and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK)-University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany
| | - Christian Furth
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany
| | - Cihan Gani
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Tübingen, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - Eleni Gkika
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Anca-L Grosu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Christoph Henkenberens
- Department of Radiotherapy and Special Oncology, Medical School Hannover, Hannover, Germany
| | - Harun Ilhan
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Steffen Löck
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
- OncoRay-National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
| | - Simone Marnitz-Schulze
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cyberknife and Radiotherapy, Medical Faculty, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Matthias Miederer
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Mainz, Mainz, Germany
| | - Michael Mix
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Nils H Nicolay
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Maximilian Niyazi
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Christoph Pöttgen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, West German Cancer Centre, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany
| | - Claus M Rödel
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Frankfurt, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- Department of Radiotherapy and Oncology, Goethe-University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Imke Schatka
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany
| | | | - Andrei S Todica
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Wolfgang Weber
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany
| | - Simone Wegen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cyberknife and Radiotherapy, Medical Faculty, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Thomas Wiegel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ulm University Hospital, Ulm, Germany
| | - Constantinos Zamboglou
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Daniel Zips
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Tübingen, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - Klaus Zöphel
- OncoRay-National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Partner Site Dresden, Germany: German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany, Helmholtz Association/Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf (HZDR), Dresden, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Dresden, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Klinikum Chemnitz gGmbH, Chemnitz, Germany
| | - Sebastian Zschaeck
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany
| | - Daniela Thorwarth
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Tübingen, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- Section for Biomedical Physics, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - Esther G C Troost
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
- OncoRay-National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany.
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Partner Site Dresden, Germany: German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany, Helmholtz Association/Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf (HZDR), Dresden, Germany.
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Dresden, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
- Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology-OncoRay, Dresden, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Lapa C, Nestle U, Albert NL, Baues C, Beer A, Buck A, Budach V, Bütof R, Combs SE, Derlin T, Eiber M, Fendler WP, Furth C, Gani C, Gkika E, Grosu AL, Henkenberens C, Ilhan H, Löck S, Marnitz-Schulze S, Miederer M, Mix M, Nicolay NH, Niyazi M, Pöttgen C, Rödel CM, Schatka I, Schwarzenboeck SM, Todica AS, Weber W, Wegen S, Wiegel T, Zamboglou C, Zips D, Zöphel K, Zschaeck S, Thorwarth D, Troost EGC. Value of PET imaging for radiation therapy. Nuklearmedizin 2021; 60:326-343. [PMID: 34261141 DOI: 10.1055/a-1525-7029] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
This comprehensive review written by experts in their field gives an overview on the current status of incorporating positron emission tomography (PET) into radiation treatment planning. Moreover, it highlights ongoing studies for treatment individualisation and per-treatment tumour response monitoring for various primary tumours. Novel tracers and image analysis methods are discussed. The authors believe this contribution to be of crucial value for experts in the field as well as for policy makers deciding on the reimbursement of this powerful imaging modality.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Constantin Lapa
- Nuclear Medicine, Medical Faculty, University of Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany
| | - Ursula Nestle
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Kliniken Maria Hilf, Mönchengladbach, Germany
| | - Nathalie L Albert
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Christian Baues
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cyberknife and Radiotherapy, Medical Faculty, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Ambros Beer
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Ulm University Hospital, Ulm, Germany
| | - Andreas Buck
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany
| | - Volker Budach
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Berlin, Germany
| | - Rebecca Bütof
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.,OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
| | - Stephanie E Combs
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Munich, Munich, Germany.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany.,Department of Radiation Sciences (DRS), Institute of Radiation Medicine (IRM), Neuherberg, Germany
| | - Thorsten Derlin
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Germany
| | - Matthias Eiber
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany
| | - Wolfgang P Fendler
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Duisburg-Essen and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK)-University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany
| | - Christian Furth
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany
| | - Cihan Gani
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Tübingen, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - Eleni Gkika
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Anca L Grosu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | | | - Harun Ilhan
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Steffen Löck
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.,OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
| | - Simone Marnitz-Schulze
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cyberknife and Radiotherapy, Medical Faculty, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Matthias Miederer
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Mainz, Mainz, Germany
| | - Michael Mix
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Nils H Nicolay
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Maximilian Niyazi
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Christoph Pöttgen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, West German Cancer Centre, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany
| | - Claus M Rödel
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Frankfurt, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,Department of Radiotherapy and Oncology, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Imke Schatka
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany
| | | | - Andrei S Todica
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Wolfgang Weber
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany
| | - Simone Wegen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cyberknife and Radiotherapy, Medical Faculty, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Thomas Wiegel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ulm University Hospital, Ulm, Germany
| | - Constantinos Zamboglou
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Daniel Zips
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Tübingen, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - Klaus Zöphel
- OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany.,National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Partner Site Dresden, Germany: German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany; Helmholtz Association/Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf (HZDR), Dresden, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Dresden, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,Department of Nuclear Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.,Department of Nuclear Medicine, Klinikum Chemnitz gGmbH, Chemnitz, Germany
| | - Sebastian Zschaeck
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany
| | - Daniela Thorwarth
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Tübingen, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,Section for Biomedical Physics, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - Esther G C Troost
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.,OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany.,National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Partner Site Dresden, Germany: German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany; Helmholtz Association/Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf (HZDR), Dresden, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Dresden, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology - OncoRay, Dresden, Germany
| | | |
Collapse
|
6
|
Abstract
Radiotherapy (RT) plays a diverse and essential role in the contemporary management of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and remains the single most powerful monotherapeutic intervention for both aggressive and indolent subtypes. Over the past decade, there have been significant advancements in radiation oncology practice, which have made modern treatments safer and more conformal. Despite this sophistication and evidence supporting a continued role for RT, numerous data suggest that utilization is on the decline. In this review, we discuss the rationale for RT in 4 commonly encountered scenarios: combined modality therapy for limited-stage aggressive NHL, consolidation therapy for advanced-stage aggressive NHL, and the changing roles of salvage RT for relapsed/refractory NHL in an era of new frontiers such as cellular therapies. We also evaluate current strategies to treat indolent histologies. We conclude with perspectives on how RT for the hematological malignancies may continue to evolve.
Collapse
|
7
|
Stage-specific trends in primary therapy and survival in follicular lymphoma: a nationwide population-based analysis in the Netherlands, 1989-2016. Leukemia 2020; 35:1683-1695. [PMID: 33046819 DOI: 10.1038/s41375-020-01048-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/23/2020] [Revised: 08/12/2020] [Accepted: 09/29/2020] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
Abstract
We assessed stage-specific trends in primary therapy and relative survival among adult follicular lymphoma (FL) patients diagnosed in the Netherlands between 1989-2016 (N = 12,372; median age, 62 years; and 21% stage I disease). Patients were stratified by disease stage and subsequently categorized into four calendar periods (1989-1995, 1996-2002, 2003-2008, and 2009-2016) and three age groups (18-60, 61-70, and >70 years). The use of radiotherapy in stage I FL remained relatively stable over time and across the three age groups (i.e., 66%, 54%, and 49% in 2009-2016, respectively). In stage II-IV FL, the start of chemotherapy within 12 months post-diagnosis decreased over time, indicating a broader application of a watch-and-wait approach. Relative survival improved considerably over time, especially since 2003 when rituximab was introduced in the Netherlands, and for stage III-IV FL patients and older age groups. Five-year relative survival for patients with stage I-II versus stage III-IV FL in the period 2009-2016 was 96% versus 90%, 93% versus 83%, and 92% versus 68% across the three age groups, respectively. Collectively, the improvement in survival since 2003 is accounted for by advances in FL management, particularly the implementation of rituximab. There remains, however, room for improvement among elderly stage III-IV FL patients.
Collapse
|
8
|
The Optimal Use of Imaging in Radiation Therapy for Lymphoma: Guidelines from the International Lymphoma Radiation Oncology Group (ILROG). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2019; 104:501-512. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.02.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/01/2018] [Revised: 01/28/2019] [Accepted: 02/03/2019] [Indexed: 12/21/2022]
|
9
|
Definitive radiotherapy for localized follicular lymphoma staged by 18F-FDG PET-CT: a collaborative study by ILROG. Blood 2018; 133:237-245. [PMID: 30446493 DOI: 10.1182/blood-2018-04-843540] [Citation(s) in RCA: 68] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/18/2018] [Accepted: 10/31/2018] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
Radiotherapy (RT) can be curative in patients with localized follicular lymphoma (FL), with historical series showing a 10-year disease-free survival of 40 to 50%. As 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) positron emission tomography with computerized tomography (PET-CT) upstages 10 to 60% of patients compared to CT, we sought to evaluate outcomes in patients staged by PET-CT, to determine if more accurate staging leads to better patient selection and results. We conducted a multicenter retrospective study under the direction of the International Lymphoma Radiation Oncology Group (ILROG). Inclusion criteria were: RT alone for untreated stage I to II FL (grade 1-3A) with dose equivalent ≥24 Gy, staged by PET-CT, age ≥18 years, and follow-up ≥3 months. End points were freedom from progression (FFP), local control, and overall survival (OS). A total of 512 patients treated between 2000 and 2017 at 16 centers were eligible for analysis; median age was 58 years (range, 20-90); 410 patients (80.1%) had stage I disease; median RT dose was 30 Gy (24-52); and median follow-up was 52 months (3.2-174.6). Five-year FFP and OS were 68.9% and 95.7%. For stage I, FFP was 74.1% vs 49.1% for stage II (P < .0001). Eight patients relapsed in-field (1.6%). Four had marginal recurrences (0.8%) resulting in local control rate of 97.6%. On multivariable analysis, stage II (hazard ratio [HR], 2.11; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.44-3.10) and BCL2 expression (HR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.07-2.47) were significantly associated with less favorable FFP. Outcome after RT in PET-CT staged patients appears to be better than in earlier series, particularly in stage I disease, suggesting that the curative potential of RT for truly localized FL has been underestimated.
Collapse
|
10
|
Metser U, Dudebout J, Baetz T, Hodgson DC, Langer DL, MacCrostie P, Mak V, Tau N. [ 18 F]-FDG PET/CT in the staging and management of indolent lymphoma: A prospective multicenter PET registry study. Cancer 2017; 123:2860-2866. [PMID: 28295218 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.30672] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/24/2017] [Revised: 02/15/2017] [Accepted: 02/18/2017] [Indexed: 11/12/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND To measure the clinical impact of pretreatment fludeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) on the staging and management of apparent limited stage indolent lymphoma being considered for curative radiation therapy. METHODS We conducted a prospective multicenter registry study that included 197 patients accrued between May 1, 2012, and December 31, 2015. Pre-PET/CT stage, determined by clinical and CT data, was documented. If pre-PET/CT stage was indeterminate, a stage was assigned to the patient by the referring oncologist according to best clinical judgment and treatment intent. After PET/CT, revised stage and planned management were recorded and compared with data on actual treatment received available through provincial databases (n = 155). RESULTS PET/CT resulted in the upstaging of 47 (23.9%) patients with presumed limited stage disease (stage I-II) to advanced stage disease (stage III-IV) (P < .0001). Ten (5.1%) patients were downstaged by PET/CT, 4 of whom migrated from advanced to limited stage disease. Twenty-eight (14.2%) patients with a specific pre-PET/CT stage had equivocal PET/CT findings that required further evaluation to confirm disease extent. After PET/CT, 95 (61.3%) patients were planned to receive active treatment. Of the 59 patients planned for radiotherapy alone post-PET/CT, 34 (57.6%) received this treatment (P = .002), and nearly 80% of them (n = 27) had confirmed limited stage disease. CONCLUSION PET/CT has a significant impact on staging and management in patients with apparent limited stage indolent lymphoma who are being considered for curative radiotherapy. PET/CT should be routinely incorporated into the workup of these patients. Cancer 2017;123:2860-66. © 2017 American Cancer Society.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ur Metser
- Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Jill Dudebout
- Department of Oncology, Cancer Centre of Southeastern Ontario, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
| | - Tara Baetz
- Department of Oncology, Cancer Centre of Southeastern Ontario, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
| | - David C Hodgson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, and Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Deanna L Langer
- Cancer Imaging, Clinical Programs and Quality Initiatives, Cancer Care Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Pamela MacCrostie
- Cancer Imaging, Clinical Programs and Quality Initiatives, Cancer Care Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Victor Mak
- Cancer Analytics, Cancer Care Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Noam Tau
- Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Ravi Kumar AS, Tam C, Hofman MS. FDG PET in follicular lymphoma: more than a staging test? Leuk Lymphoma 2017; 58:1521-1523. [PMID: 28092995 DOI: 10.1080/10428194.2016.1272691] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/20/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Aravind S Ravi Kumar
- a Department of Cancer Imaging , Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre , Melbourne , Australia
| | - Constantine Tam
- b Department of Haematology , Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre , Melbourne , Australia
| | - Michael S Hofman
- a Department of Cancer Imaging , Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre , Melbourne , Australia.,c Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology , University of Melbourne , Melbourne , Australia
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Kostakoglu L, Goy A, Martinelli G, Caballero D, Crump M, Gaidano G, Baetz T, Buckstein R, Fine G, Fingerle-Rowson G, Berge C, Sahin D, Press O, Sehn L. FDG-PET is prognostic and predictive for progression-free survival in relapsed follicular lymphoma: exploratory analysis of the GAUSS study. Leuk Lymphoma 2016; 58:372-381. [DOI: 10.1080/10428194.2016.1196815] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/21/2022]
|
13
|
Barrington SF, Mikhaeel NG. PET Scans for Staging and Restaging in Diffuse Large B-Cell and Follicular Lymphomas. Curr Hematol Malig Rep 2016; 11:185-95. [PMID: 27095319 PMCID: PMC4858550 DOI: 10.1007/s11899-016-0318-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/18/2022]
Abstract
Positron emission tomography (PET)-CT was recommended in updated international guidelines for staging/restaging of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and follicular lymphoma (FL). In FL, PET was previously regarded as a research application only. This review concentrates on new publications related to PET in these diseases. In DLBCL, PET appears appropriate for staging using prognostic indices established with CT and baseline PET parameters, e.g. metabolic tumour volume, are prognostic of outcome. Early complete metabolic response (CMR) predicts end-of-treatment CMR with excellent prognosis. Patients without CMR at interim should not have treatment altered, but have a worse prognosis, and patients with other high risk features may need closer monitoring. The end-of-treatment scan is confirmed as the standard for remission assessment using Deauville criteria, which are also predictive for patients undergoing ASCT. In FL, PET is more sensitive for staging than CT but misses bone marrow involvement. PET-CT identifies patients at risk of progression after induction chemotherapy better than CT.
Collapse
MESH Headings
- Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/therapeutic use
- Bone Marrow/pathology
- Fluorodeoxyglucose F18/chemistry
- Humans
- Lymphoma, Follicular/diagnosis
- Lymphoma, Follicular/diagnostic imaging
- Lymphoma, Follicular/drug therapy
- Lymphoma, Follicular/mortality
- Lymphoma, Large B-Cell, Diffuse/diagnosis
- Lymphoma, Large B-Cell, Diffuse/diagnostic imaging
- Lymphoma, Large B-Cell, Diffuse/drug therapy
- Lymphoma, Large B-Cell, Diffuse/mortality
- Neoplasm Staging
- Positron-Emission Tomography
- Prognosis
- Survival Rate
- Tomography, X-Ray Computed
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sally F Barrington
- PET Imaging Centre at St Thomas' Hospital, Division of Imaging Sciences and Biomedical Engineering, King's College London, Westminster Bridge Road, London, SE1 7EH, UK.
| | - N George Mikhaeel
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, Guy's Hospital, Great Maze Pond, London, SE1 9RT, UK
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
|
15
|
El-Galaly TC, Hutchings M. Imaging of non-Hodgkin lymphomas: diagnosis and response-adapted strategies. Cancer Treat Res 2015; 165:125-46. [PMID: 25655608 DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-13150-4_5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/22/2023]
Abstract
Optimal lymphoma management requires accurate pretreatment staging and reliable assessment of response, both during and after therapy. Positron emission tomography with computerized tomography (PET/CT) combines functional and anatomical imaging and provides the most sensitive and accurate methods for lymphoma imaging. New guidelines for lymphoma imaging and recently revised criteria for lymphoma staging and response assessment recommend PET/CT staging, treatment monitoring, and response evaluation in all FDG-avid lymphomas, while CT remains the method of choice for non-FDG-avid histologies. Since interim PET imaging has high prognostic value in lymphoma, a number of trials investigate PET-based, response-adapted therapy for non-Hodgkin lymphomas (NHL). PET response is the main determinant of response according to the new response criteria, but PET/CT has little or no role in routine surveillance imaging, the value which is itself questionable. This review presents from a clinical point of view the evidence for the use of imaging and primarily PET/CT in NHL before, during, and after therapy. The reader is given an overview of the current PET-based interventional NHL trials and an insight into possible future developments in the field, including new PET tracers.
Collapse
|
16
|
|
17
|
Seymour JF, Trotman J, Hofman MS. Evaluating the place of 18-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography scanning in primary staging and beyond in patients with follicular lymphoma. Leuk Lymphoma 2014; 54:2093-5. [PMID: 23641872 DOI: 10.3109/10428194.2013.800201] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/13/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- John F Seymour
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, East Melbourne, Australia and University of Melbourne , Parkville , Australia
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
18
|
Jin S, Chae SY, Chang SE, Suh C, Lee SW, Ryu JS. A case of xanthoma disseminatum: evaluation and monitoring by 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography. Br J Dermatol 2013; 170:1177-81. [PMID: 24329687 DOI: 10.1111/bjd.12789] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 12/10/2013] [Indexed: 12/27/2022]
Abstract
Xanthoma disseminatum (XD) is a rare benign histiocytic disorder with extensive mucocutaneous xanthomas that often involves other sites such as the central nervous system (CNS), respiratory tract and abdominal organs. Evaluation of the extent of disease is important because lesions in critical locations may increase morbidity and mortality. However, there are no well-established tools for the evaluation and monitoring of XD. Here, we report a case of XD in a 21-year-old male patient showing skin, mucous membrane, CNS and internal organ involvement. In this case, (18) F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography was useful in detecting the extent of the disease and in estimating the therapeutic response.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S Jin
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 138-736, Korea
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
19
|
Hillner BE, Tosteson AN, Tosteson TD, Wang Q, Song Y, Hanna LG, Siegel BA. Intended versus inferred care after PET performed for initial staging in the National Oncologic PET Registry. J Nucl Med 2013; 54:2024-31. [PMID: 24221994 DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.113.123430] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/22/2022] Open
Abstract
UNLABELLED The National Oncologic PET Registry (NOPR) collected data on intended management before and after PET in cancer patients. We have previously reported that PET was associated with a change in intended management of about one third of patients and was consistent across cancer types. It is uncertain if intended management plans reflect the actual care these patients received. One approach to assess actual care received is using administrative claims to categorize the type and timing of clinical services. METHODS NOPR data from 2006 to 2008 were linked to Medicare claims for consenting patients aged 65 y or older undergoing initial-staging PET scanning for bladder, ovarian, pancreatic, small cell lung, or stomach cancers. We determined the 60-d agreement between claims-inferred care and NOPR treatment plans. RESULTS Patients (n = 4,661) were assessed, and 30%-52% had metastatic disease. Planned treatments were about two-thirds monotherapy, of which 46% was systemic therapy only, and one-third combinations. Claims paid by 60 d confirmed the NOPR plan of any systemic therapy, radiotherapy, or surgery in 79.3%, 64.7%, and 63.6%, respectively. Single-mode plans were much more often confirmed: systemic therapy in more than 85% of patients with ovarian, pancreatic, and small cell lung cancers and surgery in more than 73% of those with bladder, pancreatic, and stomach cancers. Intended combination treatments had claims for both in only 28% of patients receiving surgery-based combinations and in 55% receiving chemoradiotherapy. About 90% of patients with NOPR-planned systemic therapy had evaluation or management claims from a medical oncologist. An age of less than 75 y was associated more often with confirmation of chemotherapy, less often for radiotherapy but not with confirmation of surgery. Performance status or comorbidity did not explain confirmation rates within action categories, but confirmation rates were higher if the referrer specialized in the planned treatment. CONCLUSION Claims confirmations of NOPR intent for initial staging were widely variable but were higher than previously reported for restaging PET, suggesting that measuring change in intended management is a reasonable method for assessing the impact diagnostic tests have on actual care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bruce E Hillner
- Department of Internal Medicine and the Massey Cancer Center, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
20
|
Prognostic Value of Metabolic Activity Measured by (18)F-FDG PET/CT in Patients with Advanced Endometrial Cancer. Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2013; 47:257-62. [PMID: 24900121 DOI: 10.1007/s13139-013-0228-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/24/2013] [Revised: 07/24/2013] [Accepted: 08/13/2013] [Indexed: 12/22/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE We evaluated the potential prognostic value of (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) in patients with stage IIIC/IV endometrial cancer. METHODS Patients with stage IIIC/IV endometrial cancer who had undergone FDG PET/CT workup for staging were enrolled. Maximum standardized uptake values (SUVmax) measured from regions of interest (ROIs) of the primary tumor (SUVt) and lymph nodes (SUVn) were correlated with overall survival (OS). The SUVn was defined as the highest SUVmax of the metastatic lymph nodes. Survival probability was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS A total of 42 patients with a median age of 55.5 years (range 32-76 years) were included. Twenty-nine percent (n = 12) of patients were premenopausal and 71 % (n = 30) were postmenopausal. The average SUVt was 12.9 (range 1.8-36.5), and the average SUVn was 7.3 (range 2.0-22.5). Median follow-up time was 25.9 months (range 1-84 months). Using a SUVt of 9.5 as a cutoff value, two groups with different rates were determined (P = 0.026). In addition, patients with a low SUVn had significantly better OS than those with a high SUVn (P = 0.003). Patients in the International Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecology (FIGO) stage IV group with SUVt ≥ 9.5 or SUVn ≥ 7.3 showed a significantly longer OS than the other groups. CONCLUSIONS FDG uptake of primary endometrial cancer and lymph nodes might be a prognostic factor in advanced endometrial cancer. More aggressive therapy could be considered in patients with stage IV endometrial cancer and high SUVt and/or high SUVn.
Collapse
|
21
|
Intended versus inferred management after PET for cancer restaging: analysis of Medicare claims linked to a coverage with evidence development registry. Med Care 2013; 51:361-7. [PMID: 23481033 DOI: 10.1097/mlr.0b013e318287d860] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/22/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The National Oncologic PET Registry (NOPR) ascertained changes in the intended management of cancer patients using questionnaire data obtained before and after positron emission tomography (PET) under Medicare's coverage with evidence development policy. OBJECTIVE To assess the concordance between intended care plans and care received as ascertained through administrative claims data. RESEARCH DESIGN Analysis of linked data of NOPR participants from 2006 to 2008 and their corresponding Medicare claims. SUBJECTS Consenting patients aged older than 65 years having their first PET for restaging of bladder, kidney, ovarian, pancreas, prostate, small cell lung, or stomach cancer. MEASURES : Agreement (positive predictive values and κ) between NOPR post-PET intended management plans for treatment (systemic therapy, radiotherapy, surgery, or combinations), biopsy, or watching as compared to claims-inferred care 30 days after PET. RESULTS A total of 8460 patients with linked data were assessed. A total of 43.5% had metastatic disease and 45.3% had treatment planned (predominantly systemic therapy only), 11.1% biopsy and 43.5% watching. Claims-confirmed intended plans (positive predictive value) for single-mode systemic therapy in 62.0%, radiation in 66.0%, surgery in 45.6%, and biopsy in 55.7%. A total of 25.7% of patients with a plan of watching had treatment claims. By cancer type, κ ranged for systemic therapy only from 0.17 to 0.40 and for watching from 0.21 to 0.41. Agreement rates varied by cancer types but were minimally associated with patient age, performance status, comorbidity, or stage. CONCLUSIONS Among elderly cancer patients undergoing PET for restaging, there was moderate concordance between their physicians' planned management and claims-inferred actions within a narrow time window. When higher accuracy levels are required in future coverage with evidence development studies, alternative designs will be needed.
Collapse
|
22
|
Zinzani PL, Marchetti M, Billio A, Barosi G, Carella AM, Lazzarino M, Martelli M, Rambaldi A, Rigacci L, Tarella C, Vitolo U, Tura S. SIE, SIES, GITMO revised guidelines for the management of follicular lymphoma. Am J Hematol 2013; 88:185-92. [PMID: 23339086 DOI: 10.1002/ajh.23372] [Citation(s) in RCA: 29] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/08/2012] [Revised: 11/15/2012] [Accepted: 11/19/2012] [Indexed: 12/26/2022]
Abstract
By using the GRADE system, we updated the guidelines for management of follicular cell lymphoma issued in 2006 from SIE, SIES, and GITMO group. We confirmed our recommendation to frontline chemoimmunotherapy in patients with Stage III-IV disease and/or high tumor burden. Maintenance rituximab was also recommended in responding patients. In patients relapsing after an interval longer than 12 months from frontline therapy, we recommended chemoimmunotherapy with non cross-resistant regimens followed by rituximab maintenance. High dose chemotherapy followed by hematopoietic stem cell transplant was recommended for young fit patients who achieve a response after salvage chemoimmunotherapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pier Luigi Zinzani
- Istituto di Ematologia ed Oncologia Medica “Seragnoli,”; Università di Bologna; Bologna; Italy
| | | | - Atto Billio
- Unità di Ematologia; Ospedale Civile di Bolzano; Bolzano; Italy
| | - Giovanni Barosi
- Laboratory of Clinical Epidemiology and Center of the Study of Myelofibrosis; Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo; Pavia; Italy
| | - Angelo Michele Carella
- Divisione di Ematologia I; IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria San Martino; Genova; Italy
| | - Mario Lazzarino
- Divisione di Ematologia; Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo; Pavia; Italy
| | - Maurizio Martelli
- Dipartimento di Biotecnologie Cellulari ed Ematologia; Cattedra di Ematologia; Università La Sapienza; Roma
| | | | - Luigi Rigacci
- Unit of Hematology; AOU Careggi; University of Florence; Firenze; Italy
| | | | - Umberto Vitolo
- Divisione di Ematologia; Azienda Ospedaliera San Giovanni Battista; Torino; Italy
| | - Sante Tura
- Department of Hematology; University of Bologna; Bologna; Italy
| | | |
Collapse
|
23
|
Hicks RJ. Should positron emission tomography/computed tomography be the first rather than the last test performed in the assessment of cancer? Cancer Imaging 2012; 12:315-23. [PMID: 23022990 PMCID: PMC3460557 DOI: 10.1102/1470-7330.2012.9005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/22/2022] Open
Abstract
Cancer is a major cause of illness and death in Western society and is associated with a heavy concomitant economic burden. Although use of imaging comprises only a small proportion of the fiscal impact of cancer, its use has been increasing over recent decades, causing concern amongst funders of health care and efforts to constrain the use of new imaging tests with a relatively high unit cost. In clinical practice, positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) is generally performed when less expensive tests have left some uncertainty regarding appropriate management. In this setting, its utility relates to provision of incremental diagnostic information. However, given that superior diagnostic information can positively affect patient management, wherein the majority of costs reside, it may be both more efficient and cost effective to go directly to the most accurate investigation in certain situations. For PET/CT, the ability to provide more accurate assessment of metastatic status than is available from conventional diagnostic paradigms provides a rationale for its independent rather than incremental use in patients presenting with either a high likelihood of malignancy or proven malignancy of a locally advanced nature and an accordingly high risk of metastatic disease. A randomized trial design is described that could be used to test this hypothesis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rodney J Hicks
- The Sir Peter MacCallum Oncology Department, the University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
El-Najjar I, Barwick T, Avril N, Montoto S. The role of FDG-PET and bone marrow examination in lymphoma staging. Ann Oncol 2012; 23 Suppl 10:x89-91. [DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mds316] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/15/2022] Open
|
25
|
FDG-PET in Follicular Lymphoma Management. JOURNAL OF ONCOLOGY 2012; 2012:370272. [PMID: 22899920 PMCID: PMC3413977 DOI: 10.1155/2012/370272] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/19/2012] [Accepted: 06/26/2012] [Indexed: 11/23/2022]
Abstract
18-Fluoro-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computerised tomography (FDG PET/CT) is commonly used in the management of patients with lymphomas and is recommended for both initial staging and response assessment after treatment in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and Hodgkin lymphoma. Despite the FDG avidity of follicular lymphoma (FL), FDG PET/CT is not yet applied in standard clinical practice for patients with FL. However, FDG PET/CT is more accurate than conventional imaging for initial staging, often prompting significant management change, and allows noninvasive characterization to guide assessment of high-grade transformation. For restaging, FDG PET/CT assists in distinguishing between scar tissue and viable tumors in residual masses and a positive PET after induction treatment would seem to predict a shorter progression-free survival.
Collapse
|
26
|
Abstract
Imaging contributes to management of follicular lymphoma (FL) through guiding biopsy, determining disease stage and assessing therapeutic response. Molecular imaging with positron emission tomography (PET), especially when combined with computer tomography (PET/CT), is more accurate than conventional imaging and extends the role of imaging to lesion characterisation, including non-invasive assessment of high-grade transformation. There is strong data to support the use of FDG PET/CT for primary staging, resulting in significant management change. In patients with early stage follicular lymphoma (stage I or II), there is a clear role for PET/CT to avoid futile involved-field radiotherapy in patients with widespread disease and to optimise the treatment field in patients with confirmed localised disease. For restaging, use of PET/CT allows discrimination between scar tissue and viable tumour in residual masses. Molecular imaging is likely to play an increasing role in selection of patients for specific treatments and in prognostic stratification.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M S Hofman
- Centre for Cancer Imaging, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.
| | | |
Collapse
|
27
|
Affiliation(s)
- Rodney J Hicks
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, and University of Melbourne Melbourne, Australia.
| | | |
Collapse
|
28
|
Lin M, Wong C, Lin P, Shon IH, Cuganesan R, Som S. The prevalence and clinical significance of 18F-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG) uptake in the thyroid gland on PET or PET-CT in patients with lymphoma. Hematol Oncol 2010; 29:67-74. [DOI: 10.1002/hon.955] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/03/2010] [Revised: 05/20/2010] [Accepted: 06/01/2010] [Indexed: 11/07/2022]
|
29
|
Lin M, Shon IH, Lin P. Positron emission tomography: current status and future challenges. Intern Med J 2010; 40:19-29. [DOI: 10.1111/j.1445-5994.2009.02072.x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/22/2022]
|
30
|
Clinical impact of (11)C-methionine PET on expected management of patients with brain neoplasm. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2009; 37:685-90. [PMID: 19915838 DOI: 10.1007/s00259-009-1302-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 39] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/23/2009] [Accepted: 10/09/2009] [Indexed: 12/22/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE We retrospectively examined the clinical efficacy of (11)C-methionine positron emission tomography ((11)C-MET PET) in patients with brain neoplasm, especially whether the (11)C-MET PET changed the clinical management and whether the change was beneficial or detrimental. METHODS This study reviewed 89 (11)C-MET PET scans for 80 patients (20 scans for initial diagnosis of brain tumor and 69 scans for differentiating tumor recurrence from radiation necrosis). Final diagnosis and the effect on the intended management were obtained from the questionnaire to the referring physicians or directly from the medical records. The diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for the (11)C-MET PET were evaluated. Regarding the management impact, the rate of scans that caused changes in intended management was also evaluated. Moreover, the occurrence of scans having detrimental diagnostic impact (DDI) and beneficial diagnostic impact (BDI) were evaluated. RESULTS Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of (11)C-MET PET was 87.8, 80.0, and 85.9%. The intended management was changed in 50.0% of the scans. DDI and BDI were observed in 4.3 and 36.2% of the total relevant scans, respectively. CONCLUSION (11)C-MET PET can provide useful information in initial diagnosis and differentiating tumor recurrence from radiation necrosis. The intended management was changed in half of the scans. Since a few cases did not receive the requisite treatment due to false-negative results of (11)C-MET PET, management decision should be made carefully, especially in the case of a negative scan.
Collapse
|