Total Lesion Glycolysis Improves Tumor Burden Evaluation and Risk Assessment at Diagnosis in Hodgkin Lymphoma.
Ann Arbor stage
Hodgkin lymphoma
metabolic tumor volume
risk assessment
survival
total lesion glycolysis
Journal
Journal of clinical medicine
ISSN: 2077-0383
Titre abrégé: J Clin Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101606588
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
26 Sep 2021
26 Sep 2021
Historique:
received:
19
08
2021
revised:
08
09
2021
accepted:
12
09
2021
entrez:
13
10
2021
pubmed:
14
10
2021
medline:
14
10
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) is a hematological malignancy with an excellent prognosis. However, we still need to identify those patients that could experience failed standard frontline chemotherapy. Tumor burden evaluation and standard decisions are based on Ann Arbor (AA) staging, but this approach may be insufficient in predicting outcomes. We aim to study new ways to assess tumor burden through volume-based PET parameters to improve the risk assessment of HL patients. We retrospectively analyzed 101 patients with HL from two hospitals in the Balearic Islands between 2011 and 2018. Higher metabolic tumor volume (MTV) and total lesion glycolysis (TLG) were significantly associated with a higher incidence of III-IV AA stages, B-symptoms, hypoalbuminemia, lymphopenia, and higher IPS. Standardized uptake value (SUVmax) was significantly related to AA stage and hypoalbuminemia. We found that TLG or the combination of SUVmax, TLG, and MTV significantly improved the risk assessment when compared to AA staging. We conclude that TLG is the best single PET/CT-related tumor-load parameter that significantly improves HL risk assessment when compared to AA staging. If confirmed in a larger and validated sample, this information could be used to modify standard frontline therapy and justifies the inclusion of TLG inside an HL prognostic score.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34640418
pii: jcm10194396
doi: 10.3390/jcm10194396
pmc: PMC8509690
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
BMC Cancer. 2018 May 3;18(1):521
pubmed: 29724189
J Clin Oncol. 2011 May 10;29(14):1844-54
pubmed: 21482982
J Clin Oncol. 2017 Jun 1;35(16):1786-1794
pubmed: 28291393
N Engl J Med. 2010 Aug 12;363(7):640-52
pubmed: 20818855
Cancer Sci. 2013 Dec;104(12):1656-61
pubmed: 24033666
J Clin Oncol. 2014 Sep 20;32(27):3059-68
pubmed: 25113753
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019 Jan;46(1):87-96
pubmed: 30276438
Ann Nucl Med. 2018 Jul;32(6):410-416
pubmed: 29754276
J Nucl Med. 2018 Jun 7;:
pubmed: 29880508
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014 Sep;41(9):1735-43
pubmed: 24811577
Semin Nucl Med. 2018 Jan;48(1):50-66
pubmed: 29195618
J Clin Oncol. 1989 Nov;7(11):1630-6
pubmed: 2809679
Ann Oncol. 2018 Oct 1;29(Suppl 4):iv19-iv29
pubmed: 29796651
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013 Sep;40(9):1321-9
pubmed: 23674211
J Clin Oncol. 2010 Sep 20;28(27):4199-206
pubmed: 20713848
Ann Hematol. 2012 May;91(5):697-703
pubmed: 22071570
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010 Aug;195(2):310-20
pubmed: 20651185
Leuk Lymphoma. 2009 Aug;50(8):1257-60
pubmed: 19544140
Nat Methods. 2012 Jun 28;9(7):676-82
pubmed: 22743772
Haematologica. 2016 Oct;101(10):1237-1243
pubmed: 27390360
PLoS One. 2019 Jan 9;14(1):e0210224
pubmed: 30625203
Med Oncol. 2015 Jan;32(1):446
pubmed: 25511321
Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2018 Jan;24(1):64-70
pubmed: 28942016
Ann Hematol. 2020 Jun;99(6):1321-1330
pubmed: 32333153
N Engl J Med. 1998 Nov 19;339(21):1506-14
pubmed: 9819449
Blood. 2018 Jan 4;131(1):84-94
pubmed: 29038339
J Clin Oncol. 2016 Oct 20;34(30):3618-3626
pubmed: 27551111
Cancer Res. 1971 Nov;31(11):1860-1
pubmed: 5121694
Ann Oncol. 2016 Apr;27(4):719-24
pubmed: 26787236
PLoS One. 2015 Oct 16;10(10):e0140830
pubmed: 26473950
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015 Feb;42(2):328-54
pubmed: 25452219
Ann Nucl Med. 2020 Oct;34(10):707-717
pubmed: 32924071
Blood. 2017 Nov 16;130(20):2196-2203
pubmed: 28874350
Blood. 2018 Mar 29;131(13):1456-1463
pubmed: 29437590