Limited benefit of additional contrast-enhanced CT to end-of-treatment PET/CT evaluation in patients with follicular lymphoma.
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 09 2021
16 09 2021
Historique:
received:
26
05
2021
accepted:
02
09
2021
entrez:
17
9
2021
pubmed:
18
9
2021
medline:
11
11
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Despite follicular lymphoma (FL) is frequently characterized by a moderate increase of glucose metabolism, PET/CT examinations provides valuable information for staging and response assessment of the disease. The aim of the study was to assess and compare the diagnostic performance of PET/ldCT and PET/ceCT, respectively, in evaluating FL patients at the end of treatment. Fifty FL consecutive patients who underwent end-of-therapy PET/CT with both ldCT and ceCT were analyzed. Two blinded observers independently assessed PET/ldCT and PET/ceCT applying the Deauville score (DS) and Lugano classification criteria. PET imaging obtained after the end-of-treatment (EoT) was classified as showing PET and ce-CT matched response (concordant imaging group, CIG) or PET and ce-CT unmatched response (discordant imaging group, DIG). Relapse rate and Event-Free Survival (EFS) were compared between CIG and DIG patients. Overall, no differences in metabolic response classification were observed between PET/ldCT and PET/ceCT. In 13 (26%) patients PET/ceCT identified additional FDG-negative nodal lesions in mesenteric, retroperitoneal and iliac regions. However, in all cases, final DS remained unchanged and the additional results did not modify the following therapeutic decision. Among patients, who obtained complete metabolic response a comparable rate of relapse was registered in DIG 3/13 (23%) and CIG subgroups 5/20 (25%) [p = 0.899]. In all 3 DIG cohort patients who relapsed the recurrent disease involved also, but not exclusively, PET negative lymph nodes detected by ceCT. In overall population metabolic response defined by PET/ldCT predicted EFS [76% (group of patients with metabolic response) vs 35% (group of patients with residual disease), p = 0.0013] significantly better than ceCT-Based response assessment [75% (group of patients with complete response) vs 53% (group of patients with residual disease), p = 0.06]. Our study demonstrates a negligible diagnostic and predictive value of ceCT performed in addition to standard
Identifiants
pubmed: 34531504
doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-98081-x
pii: 10.1038/s41598-021-98081-x
pmc: PMC8445966
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
18496Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
J Nucl Med. 2006 Oct;47(10):1643-8
pubmed: 17015900
Ann Hematol. 2016 Jan;95(1):11-18
pubmed: 26576560
Lancet Oncol. 2018 Nov;19(11):1530-1542
pubmed: 30309758
Eur J Radiol. 2008 Sep;67(3):508-13
pubmed: 17904324
Ann Nucl Med. 2011 Feb;25(2):93-9
pubmed: 20957527
J Clin Oncol. 2013 Sep 10;31(26):3272-8
pubmed: 23897955
Leuk Lymphoma. 2017 Feb;58(2):372-381
pubmed: 27339738
Am J Hematol. 2016 Nov;91(11):1096-1101
pubmed: 27465588
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015 Feb;42(2):328-54
pubmed: 25452219
Chin Clin Oncol. 2015 Mar;4(1):5
pubmed: 25841712
J Oncol. 2012;2012:370272
pubmed: 22899920
Haematologica. 2010 Jul;95(7):1046-8
pubmed: 20595100
Semin Nucl Med. 2018 Jan;48(1):37-49
pubmed: 29195616
Haematologica. 2012 Jun;97(6):931-6
pubmed: 22207683
Clin Nucl Med. 2017 Aug;42(8):595-602
pubmed: 28604477
Am J Hematol. 2020 Mar;95(3):316-327
pubmed: 31814159
J Clin Oncol. 2014 Sep 20;32(27):3059-68
pubmed: 25113753
Blood. 2004 Sep 1;104(5):1258-65
pubmed: 15126323
J Clin Oncol. 2019 Nov 1;37(31):2815-2824
pubmed: 31339826
Clin Med Insights Blood Disord. 2016 Aug 17;9:29-32
pubmed: 27559300
Ann Oncol. 2021 Mar;32(3):298-308
pubmed: 33249059
J Nucl Med. 2011 Dec;52 Suppl 2:93S-100S
pubmed: 22144561
J Nucl Med. 2009 May;50 Suppl 1:11S-20S
pubmed: 19380405
Lancet. 2011 Jan 1;377(9759):42-51
pubmed: 21176949
J Clin Oncol. 2008 Nov 10;26(32):5165-9
pubmed: 18838711
Eur J Radiol. 2014 Dec;83(12):2224-2230
pubmed: 25306106
Blood. 2005 Aug 15;106(4):1376-81
pubmed: 15860666
Abdom Imaging. 2010 Apr;35(2):232-40
pubmed: 19370298
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012 May;39(5):864-71
pubmed: 22354449
Leuk Lymphoma. 2012 Oct;53(10):1876-81
pubmed: 22432519
Ann Nucl Med. 2011 Apr;25(3):155-64
pubmed: 21113691
Oncologist. 2015 Aug;20(8):890-5
pubmed: 26173837
Nucl Med Commun. 2017 Apr;38(4):312-318
pubmed: 28244976
Curr Opin Oncol. 2007 Sep;19(5):433-7
pubmed: 17762566
Medicine (Baltimore). 2014 Aug;93(8):e50
pubmed: 25121354
HPB (Oxford). 2012 Jan;14(1):20-5
pubmed: 22151447
Ann Oncol. 2006 May;17(5):780-4
pubmed: 16497824
Ann Oncol. 2010 May;21 Suppl 5:v181-3
pubmed: 20555076
Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019 Aug;53(4):263-269
pubmed: 31456859
Ann Oncol. 2017 Jul 1;28(7):1436-1447
pubmed: 28379322
Ann Oncol. 2001 Jun;12(6):825-30
pubmed: 11484959