Comparison of therapeutic evaluation criteria in FDG-PET/CT in patients with diffuse large-cell B-cell lymphoma: Prognostic impact of tumor/liver ratio.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
23
10
2018
accepted:
17
01
2019
entrez:
8
2
2019
pubmed:
8
2
2019
medline:
13
11
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The study objective was to compare the prognostic value of interim and end-of-treatment FDG PET/CT using five therapeutic evaluation criteria in patients with diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL). 181 patients were retrospectively analysed. All patients underwent FDG-PET at baseline and after four cycles (iPET4) of first-line chemotherapy and 165 at the end-of-treatment (PET-eot). Ratio Deauville score (rDS) (SUVmax-target residual lesion/SUVmax-liver) was measured in iPET4 and PET-eot, and its optimal threshold was determined using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Deauville score (DS) (iPET4 and PET-eot), ΔSUVmax, ΔSUVmax determined according to Menton 2011 criteria (ΔSUVmax+DS) and ΔSUVmax+rDS were also evaluated (iPET4 only). Median follow-up was 44 months. ROC analysis revealed the optimal cut-off value was 1.4-fold of SUVmax-liver on iPET4 and PET-eot. On iPET4, positive predictive value (PPV) of rDS was significantly better than DS: 81.58% vs. 67.79%. In univariate analysis, the five interpretation methods were statistically significant (p<0.0001 for progression-free survival [PFS] and overall survival [OS]). In multivariate analysis, only rDS was an independent prognostic factor (p = 0.0002 and p<0.0001 for PFS and OS, respectively). On PET-eot, similarly, the two therapeutic evaluation criteria analysed (rDS and DS) were statistically significant at the univariate level (p<0.0001). rDS was the only significant prognostic factor in multivariate analysis (p<0.0001). PPV and accuracy of rDS were also better than DS. rDS with a tumor/liver ratio of 1.4 is a robust prognostic factor in patients with DLBCL on iPET4 and PET-eot.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30730936
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0211649
pii: PONE-D-18-30517
pmc: PMC6366736
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0211649Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Ann Nucl Med. 2018 Jun;32(5):372-377
pubmed: 29464479
J Nucl Med. 2009 Apr;50(4):527-33
pubmed: 19289424
J Nucl Med. 2007 Oct;48(10):1626-32
pubmed: 17873129
Blood. 2010 Sep 23;116(12):2040-5
pubmed: 20548096
Blood. 2011 Jul 7;118(1):37-43
pubmed: 21518924
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014 Sep;41(9):1735-43
pubmed: 24811577
Leuk Lymphoma. 2014 Apr;55(4):773-80
pubmed: 23927393
Ann Hematol. 2019 Apr;98(4):897-907
pubmed: 30610279
Ann Oncol. 2016 Apr;27(4):719-24
pubmed: 26787236
Leuk Lymphoma. 2018 Mar;59(3):660-669
pubmed: 28771052
J Clin Oncol. 2015 Aug 10;33(23):2523-9
pubmed: 26150440
J Nucl Med. 2010 Dec;51(12):1857-62
pubmed: 21078789
Haematologica. 2014 Jun;99(6):e84-5
pubmed: 24584350
J Clin Oncol. 2014 Sep 20;32(27):3059-68
pubmed: 25113753
Leuk Lymphoma. 2015 Jul;56(7):2005-12
pubmed: 25330442
Blood. 2012 Mar 1;119(9):2066-73
pubmed: 22234681
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014 Jul;41(7):1301-8
pubmed: 24604592
J Clin Oncol. 2014 Sep 20;32(27):3048-58
pubmed: 25113771
Leuk Lymphoma. 2012 Oct;53(10):1876-81
pubmed: 22432519
Lancet. 2011 Nov 26;378(9806):1858-67
pubmed: 22118442
Ann Nucl Med. 2016 Oct;30(8):588-92
pubmed: 27246952
Blood. 2017 Sep 14;130(11):1315-1326
pubmed: 28701367
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013 Sep;40(9):1312-20
pubmed: 23649463
Blood. 2017 Jun 8;129(23):3059-3070
pubmed: 28416502
Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program. 2011;2011:498-505
pubmed: 22160081
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015 Feb;42(2):328-54
pubmed: 25452219
Leuk Lymphoma. 2017 Sep;58(9):1-9
pubmed: 28535082