Diagnostic performance of prospective same-day 18F-FDG PET/MRI and 18F-FDG PET/CT in the staging and response assessment of lymphoma.
Adult
Humans
Fluorodeoxyglucose F18
Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography
/ methods
Prospective Studies
Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging
/ methods
Radiopharmaceuticals
Lymphoma
/ diagnostic imaging
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
/ methods
Positron-Emission Tomography
/ methods
Neoplasm Staging
18F-FDG
Hodgkin lymphoma
Lymphoma
Non-Hodgkin lymphoma
PET/CT
PET/MRI
Journal
Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society
ISSN: 1470-7330
Titre abrégé: Cancer Imaging
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101172931
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
24 Jan 2023
24 Jan 2023
Historique:
received:
22
08
2022
accepted:
03
01
2023
entrez:
24
1
2023
pubmed:
25
1
2023
medline:
27
1
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Accurate staging and response assessment are essential for prognosis and to guide treatment in patients with lymphoma. The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of FDG PET/MRI versus FDG PET/CT in adult patients with newly diagnosed Hodgkin and Non- Hodgkin lymphoma. In this single centre study, 50 patients were prospectively recruited. FDG PET/MRI was performed after staging FDG PET/CT using a single injection of 18F-FDG. Patients were invited to complete same-day FDG PET/MRI with FDG PET/CT at interim and end of treatment response assessments. Performance was assessed using PET/CT as the reference standard for disease site identification, staging, response assessment with Deauville score and concordance in metabolic activity. Staging assessment showed perfect agreement (κ = 1.0, P = 0) between PET/MRI and PET/CT using Ann Arbor staging. There was excellent intermodality correlation with disease site identification at staging (κ = 0.976, P < 0.001) with FDG PET/MRI sensitivity of 96% (95% CI, 94-98%) and specificity of 100% (95% CI, 99-100%). There was good correlation of disease site identification at interim assessment (κ = 0.819, P < 0.001) and excellent correlation at end-of-treatment assessment (κ = 1.0, P < 0.001). Intermodality agreement for Deauville scores was good at interim assessment (κ = 0.808, P < 0.001) and excellent at end-of-treatment assessment (κ = 1.0, P = 0). There was good-excellent concordance in SUV max and mean between modalities across timepoints. Minimum calculated radiation patient effective dose saving was 54% between the two modalities per scan. With high concordance in disease site identification, staging and response assessment, PET/MR is a potentially viable alternative to PET/CT in lymphoma that minimises radiation exposure.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Accurate staging and response assessment are essential for prognosis and to guide treatment in patients with lymphoma. The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of FDG PET/MRI versus FDG PET/CT in adult patients with newly diagnosed Hodgkin and Non- Hodgkin lymphoma.
METHODS
METHODS
In this single centre study, 50 patients were prospectively recruited. FDG PET/MRI was performed after staging FDG PET/CT using a single injection of 18F-FDG. Patients were invited to complete same-day FDG PET/MRI with FDG PET/CT at interim and end of treatment response assessments. Performance was assessed using PET/CT as the reference standard for disease site identification, staging, response assessment with Deauville score and concordance in metabolic activity.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Staging assessment showed perfect agreement (κ = 1.0, P = 0) between PET/MRI and PET/CT using Ann Arbor staging. There was excellent intermodality correlation with disease site identification at staging (κ = 0.976, P < 0.001) with FDG PET/MRI sensitivity of 96% (95% CI, 94-98%) and specificity of 100% (95% CI, 99-100%). There was good correlation of disease site identification at interim assessment (κ = 0.819, P < 0.001) and excellent correlation at end-of-treatment assessment (κ = 1.0, P < 0.001). Intermodality agreement for Deauville scores was good at interim assessment (κ = 0.808, P < 0.001) and excellent at end-of-treatment assessment (κ = 1.0, P = 0). There was good-excellent concordance in SUV max and mean between modalities across timepoints. Minimum calculated radiation patient effective dose saving was 54% between the two modalities per scan.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
With high concordance in disease site identification, staging and response assessment, PET/MR is a potentially viable alternative to PET/CT in lymphoma that minimises radiation exposure.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36694244
doi: 10.1186/s40644-023-00520-7
pii: 10.1186/s40644-023-00520-7
pmc: PMC9872391
doi:
Substances chimiques
Fluorodeoxyglucose F18
0Z5B2CJX4D
Radiopharmaceuticals
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
11Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Eur Radiol. 2019 Jan;29(1):202-212
pubmed: 29948084
J Clin Oncol. 2012 Jan 10;30(2):184-90
pubmed: 22162590
Ann Hematol. 2021 Jun;100(6):1525-1535
pubmed: 33909101
Eur J Cancer. 2011 Jun;47(9):1312-8
pubmed: 21334197
Clin Nucl Med. 2017 Mar;42(3):180-186
pubmed: 28033217
Sci Rep. 2016 Oct 17;6:35181
pubmed: 27748377
PLoS One. 2016 Jun 21;11(6):e0157880
pubmed: 27327617
Ann ICRP. 2015 Jul;44(2 Suppl):7-321
pubmed: 26069086
Ann Hematol. 2022 May;101(5):1077-1088
pubmed: 35174405
J Nucl Med. 2001 Sep;42(9):1412-7
pubmed: 11535734
Lancet Haematol. 2014 Oct;1(1):e17-27
pubmed: 27030064
Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159-74
pubmed: 843571
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015 Apr;204(4):842-8
pubmed: 25794075
J Nucl Med. 2014 May;55(5):724-9
pubmed: 24652827
J Nucl Med. 2020 Aug;61(8):1131-1136
pubmed: 31806777
Ann ICRP. 2007;37(2-4):1-332
pubmed: 18082557
Blood Res. 2022 Apr 30;57(S1):75-78
pubmed: 35483930
Rev Esp Med Nucl. 2009 May-Jun;28(3):159-66
pubmed: 19558958
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013 Jan;40(1):12-21
pubmed: 23053323
Clin Exp Metastasis. 2020 Feb;37(1):125-131
pubmed: 31555945
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017 Jun;44(6):1005-1013
pubmed: 28161723
Leuk Lymphoma. 2009 Aug;50(8):1257-60
pubmed: 19544140
Cancer. 2011 Mar 1;117(5):1010-8
pubmed: 20960498
Clin Nucl Med. 2017 Aug;42(8):595-602
pubmed: 28604477
J Clin Oncol. 2007 Aug 20;25(24):3746-52
pubmed: 17646666
Invest Radiol. 2013 May;48(5):313-22
pubmed: 23296082
J Chiropr Med. 2016 Jun;15(2):155-63
pubmed: 27330520
Rofo. 2002 Dec;174(12):1570-6
pubmed: 12471531
J Clin Oncol. 2014 Sep 20;32(27):3059-68
pubmed: 25113753
Clin Nucl Med. 2017 Jan;42(1):e1-e7
pubmed: 27607161
EJNMMI Res. 2017 Nov 3;7(1):88
pubmed: 29098485
J Nucl Med. 2021 Nov;62(11):1524-1530
pubmed: 33608429
Clin Radiol. 2008 Jul;63(7):756-64
pubmed: 18555033
Abdom Radiol (NY). 2016 Jul;41(7):1338-48
pubmed: 27315095
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016 Mar;206(3):623-31
pubmed: 26901021
J Nucl Med. 2016 Apr;57(4):582-6
pubmed: 26742715
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2020 Jun;18(6):755-781
pubmed: 32502987
J Nucl Med. 2004 Nov;45(11):1796-803
pubmed: 15534046