Deauville score versus ratio Deauville score in the interpretation of interim 18F-FDG PET-CT and in prediction of outcome in children with FDG-avid extra-nodal lymphomas

FDG PET-CT in Clinical Management of a Rare Case of Primary Hepatic Lymphoma: Role and Challenges

The common differential diagnoses for multiple space-occupying hepatic lesions (SOL) are metastases, multifocal hepatocellular carcinoma, and abscess. Primary hepatic lymphomas are rare entities that present many challenges with regard to their management. Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography is extensively used for the staging and response assessment of lymphomas but it can be challenging and difficult to interpret in cases with isolated liver involvement. We hereby present the case of an 82-year-old lady who presented with multiple liver SOL.

Are Semiquantitative Methods Superior to Deauville Scoring in the Monitoring Therapy Response for Pediatric Hodgkin Lymphoma?

Tailoring treatment in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) is paramount to maximize outcomes while avoiding unnecessary toxicity. We aimed to compare the performance of SUVmax reduction (ΔSUVmax%) and the PET ratio (rPET) versus the Deauville score (DS) for assessing the chemotherapy response in pediatric HL patients undergoing 18F-FDG PET-CT. Fifty-two patients with biopsy-proven HL (aged 8-16 years) were enrolled at baseline, interim (after the second or third chemotherapy round) and post-therapy (on completion of first-line chemotherapy). Interim and post-therapy DS, ΔSUVmax% and rPET were compared as response predictors. Patients were classified as responders or non-responders based on a 24-month clinical follow-up. Interim DS showed a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and diagnostic accuracy of 100%, 80.4%, 100%, 40% and 82.7%, respectively, in predicting the therapy response. Post-therapy DS showed a sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy of 66.7%, 97.8%, 95.7%, 80% and 94.2%, repsectively. Interim ΔSUVmax% showed a sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy of 83.3%, 82.6%, 97.4%, 38.5% and 82.7%, respectively, with a 56.3% cutoff. Post-therapy ΔSUVmax% showed a sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy of 83.3%, 84.8%, 97.5%, 41.7% and 84.6%, respectively, with a 76.8% cutoff. Compared to ΔSUVmax%, DS showed a significantly higher sensitivity, specificity (p < 0.05) and NPV (p < 0.01). The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy of rPET in predicting the therapy response at 24 months were 76.1%, 100%, 100%, 35.3% and 78.8%, respectively, with a cut-off of 1.31. DS and rPET showed comparable predictive performance (p > 0.58). In conclusion, DS is an easier method with better performance than ΔSUVmax% and rPET in predicting the chemotherapy response in pediatric HL patients.