Symptom-oriented clinical detection versus routine imaging as a monitoring policy of relapse in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma

Proportion of false-positive follow-up FDG-PET scans in lymphoma: Systematic review and meta-analysis

This study aimed to assess the false-positive proportion of follow-up ¹⁸F-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) in lymphoma patients who initially achieved an end-of-treatment complete remission, using biopsy as reference standard. Medline was searched for original studies, studies were methodologically evaluated and results were meta-analytically summarized. Proportion of false-positive results ranged between 9.5%-90.0%, with a weighted summary proportion (random effects) of 42.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 29.0%-58.0%). A separate subgroup analysis in symptomatic patients only again revealed a relatively high summary proportion of false-positive follow-up FDG-PET of 37.5% (random effects). In conclusion, the false-positive proportion of follow-up FDG-PET in lymphoma patients who initially achieved an end-of-treatment complete remission is high and remains high when a combination of clinical symptoms and follow-up FDG-PET is used. Therefore, biopsy remains compulsory and follow-up FDG-PET alone may be regarded as unreliable to define progression-free survival.

Post-treatment surveillance imaging in lymphoma

Appropriate post-treatment management of patients with lymphoma has been controversial, with imaging frequently performed as post-treatment surveillance. The goal of post-treatment imaging is to identify relapse prior to clinical symptoms, when the burden of disease is lower and the possibility of effective salvage therapy and cure are greater. However, little data exist to support the performance of surveillance imaging after completion of treatment, with the vast majority of studies suggesting there is no clinical benefit to surveillance imaging in asymptomatic patients. Ongoing efforts seek to identify a subset of patients with a higher risk of relapse that might benefit from surveillance imaging, though financial and other costs associated with imaging are non-negligible and must be considered. Here we summarize the current data regarding post-treatment surveillance imaging in lymphoma.

Utility of routine surveillance imaging for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma post autologous transplant: A single center experience

Surveillance scans after autologous stem cell transplant (auto-HCT) for patients with relapsed/refractory (RR) diffuse large B Cell lymphoma (DLBCL) have no proven survival benefit. We studied survival differences among patients with RR DLBCL post auto-HCT whose recurrences were detected clinically versus with routine surveillance imaging. Among the 139 patients with RR DLBCL that underwent auto-HCT from 2000 to 2014 at our institution, 37 relapsed: 21 clinical and 16 radiological. The median time to progression was 167 days for the clinical cohort and 565 days for the radiological cohort (p = 0.03), and median overall survival (OS) was 587 days and not reached, respectively (p = 0.006). Most patients with relapsed DLBCL after auto-HCT were diagnosed clinically and were likely to be detected earlier and have a shorter OS. Relapse in patients with aggressive disease will likely be detected when clinically apparent, and the outcome of these patients is independent of the way the relapse is diagnosed. Thus, universal scanning after auto-HCT appears to have little benefit.

Evaluating surveillance imaging for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and Hodgkin lymphoma

Up to 50% of patients with Hodgkin lymphoma and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma will relapse, requiring additional therapy. Although surveillance imaging is commonly performed in clinical practice, its ability to identify asymptomatic relapses and improve survival for patients is not well defined. We evaluated the surveillance imaging role in relapse detection and reviewed its impact on survival for relapsed patients, and found that current imaging approaches do not detect most relapses prior to clinical signs and symptoms or improve survival.

Follow-up care for survivors of lymphoma who have received curative-intent treatment

OBJECTIVE

This evidence summary set out to assess the available evidence about the follow-up of asymptomatic survivors of lymphoma who have received curative-intent treatment.

METHODS

The medline and embase databases and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched for evidence published between 2000 and August 2015 relating to lymphoma survivorship follow-up. The evidence summary was developed by a Working Group at the request of the Cancer Care Ontario Survivorship and Cancer Imaging programs because of the absence of evidence-based practice documents in Ontario for the follow-up and surveillance of asymptomatic patients with lymphoma in complete remission.

RESULTS

Eleven retrospective studies met the inclusion criteria. The proportion of relapses initially detected by clinical manifestations ranged from 13% to 78%; for relapses initially detected by imaging, the proportion ranged from 8% to 46%. Median time for relapse detection ranged from 8.6 to 19 months for patients initially suspected because of imaging and from 8.6 to 33 months for those initially suspected because of clinical manifestations. Only one study reported significantly earlier relapse detection for patients initially suspected because of clinical manifestations (mean: 4.5 months vs. 6.0 months, p = 0.042). No benefit in terms of overall survival was observed for patients depending on whether their relapse was initially detected because of clinical manifestations or surveillance imaging.

SUMMARY

Findings in the present study support the importance of improving awareness on the part of survivors and clinicians about the symptoms that might be associated with recurrence. The evidence does not support routine imaging for improving outcomes in this patient population.

Value of surveillance studies for patients with stage I to II diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in the rituximab era

BACKGROUND

The role of surveillance studies in limited-stage diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) in the rituximab era has not been well defined. We sought to evaluate the use of imaging (computed tomography [CT] and positron emission tomography [PET]-CT) scans and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) in surveillance of patients with stage I to II DLBCL.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed of patients who received definitive treatment between 2000 and 2013.

RESULTS

One hundred sixty-two consecutive patients with stage I to II DLBCL were treated with chemotherapy +/- rituximab, radiation, or combined modality therapy. The 5-year rates of overall survival (OS) and freedom from progression (FFP) were 81.2% and 80.8%, respectively. Of the 162 patients, 124 (77%) were followed up with at least 1 surveillance PET scan beyond end-of-treatment scans; of those, 94 of 124 (76%) achieved a complete metabolic response on PET scan after completion of chemotherapy, and this was associated with superior FFP (P=.01, HR=0.3) and OS (P=.01, HR 0.3). Eighteen patients experienced relapse after initial response to therapy. Nine relapses were initially suspected by surveillance imaging studies (8 PET, 1 CT), and 9 were suspected clinically (5 by patient-reported symptoms and 4 by symptoms and physical examination). No relapses were detected by surveillance LDH. The median duration from initiation of treatment to relapse was 14.3 months among patients with relapses suspected by imaging, and 59.8 months among patients with relapses suspected clinically (P=.077). There was no significant difference in OS from date of first therapy or OS after relapse between patients whose relapse was suspected by imaging versus clinically. Thirteen of 18 patients underwent successful salvage therapy after relapse.

CONCLUSIONS

A complete response on PET scan immediately after initial chemotherapy is associated with superior FFP and OS in stage I to II DLBCL. The use of PET scans as posttreatment surveillance is not associated with a survival advantage. LDH is not a sensitive marker for relapse. Our results argue for limiting the use of posttreatment surveillance in patients with limited-stage DLBCL.

Next-generation surveillance strategies for patients with lymphoma

While remission and cure rates for Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma continue to improve, surveillance approaches remain controversial, especially in light of recent reports suggesting limited benefit for routine radiologic assessment. Routine cross-sectional imaging results in considerable patient expense and anxiety, and this approach does not clearly improve patient outcomes. Next-generation approaches including minimal residual disease detection may provide an opportunity to identify relapse early and intervene prior to progression of clinical disease. This review discusses the role of surveillance imaging in Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma and provides an introduction to serologic assessment of minimal residual disease. Future studies will need to focus on the clinical application of minimal residual disease surveillance and its ability to predict relapse, treatment response and survival.

Utility of routine post-therapy surveillance imaging in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma

PURPOSE

We examined the utility of post-therapy surveillance imaging in a large, prospectively enrolled cohort of patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) from the United States and confirmed our results in an independent cohort of patients from France.

METHODS

Patients with newly diagnosed DLBCL and treated with anthracycline-based immunochemotherapy were identified from the Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) of the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Lymphoma Specialized Program of Research Excellence and the Léon Bérard Cancer Center, Lyon, France. In those with relapse, details at relapse and outcomes were abstracted from records.

RESULTS

680 individuals with DLBCL were identified from the MER, 552 (81%) of whom achieved remission after induction. 112 of the 552 patients (20%) suffered a relapse. The majority (64%) of relapses were identified before a scheduled follow-up visit. Surveillance imaging detected DLBCL relapse before clinical manifestations in nine out of 552 patients (1.6%) observed after therapy. In the Lyon cohort, imaging identified asymptomatic DLBCL relapse in four out of 222 patients (1.8%). There was no difference in survival after DLBCL relapse in patients detected at scheduled follow-up versus before scheduled follow-up in both the MER (P = .56) and Lyon cohorts (P = .25).

CONCLUSION

The majority of DLBCL relapses are detected outside of planned follow-up, with no difference in outcome in patients with DLBCL detected at a scheduled visit compared with patients with relapse detected outside of planned follow-up. These data do not support the use of routine surveillance imaging for follow-up of DLBCL.