Vargas-Partida T, Hernández-Cruz M, Ruiz-Eng R, Montiel-Jarquín ÁJ, Vázquez-Cruz E, López-Colombo A

Language: Spanish
References: 21
Page: 386-390
PDF size: 134.17 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: The assessment of lymphoma response to treatment is based on imaging studies. Objective: To correlate the assessment of lymphoma treatment response by computed tomography (CT) and by positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT). Method: Cross-sectional, observational study, where records of patients with lymphoma under surveillance by CT and PET/CT were reviewed. Results: The study population consisted of 43 patients with a mean age of 32.7 ± 22.4 years; 26 (60.5 %) had a diagnosis of Hodgkin’s lymphoma and 17 (9.5 %) had non-Hodgkin lymphoma. By CT, 34 (79.1 %) were diagnosed with disease and nine (20.9 %) without disease. The criteria used to assess the response was radiologist experience in 39 (90.7 %) and RECIST 1.1 criteria in four (9.3 %). The diagnosis by 18-FDG PET/CT was no response to treatment or partial response-recurrence in 32 (74.4 %) and response to treatment in 11 (25.6 %); with PERCIST criteria in 13 (30.2 %) and Deuaville criteria in 30 (69.8 %). When the diagnosis by CT versus 18-FDG PET/CT was compared, out of 11 patients with complete response on PET/CT, three had a similar CT diagnosis. Of the 34 patients with data consistent disease diagnosed by CT, 26 had similar results by 18-FDG PET/CT (p = 0.54). Conclusion: The value of lymphoma treatment response on CT does not agree with that obtained by 18-FDG PET/CT.

REFERENCES

1. Campo E, Swerdlow SH, Harris NL, Pileri S, Stein H, Jaffe ES. The 2008 WHO classification of lymphoid neoplasms and beyond: evolving concepts and practical applications. Blood. 2011;117 5019-5032.

2. Ott G, Rosenwald A. Molecular pathogenesis of follicular lymphoma. Haematologica. 2008;93:1773-1776.

3. Shankland KR, Armitage JO, Hancock BW. Non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Lancet. 2012;380:848-857.

4. Townsend W, Linch D. Hodgkin’s lymphoma in adults. Lancet. 2012;380:836-847.

5. Matasar MJ, Zelenetz AD. Overview of lymphoma diagnosis and management. Radiol Clin North Am. 2008;46:175-198.

6. Olsen E, Vonderheid E, Pimpinelli N, Willemze R, KiM Y, Knobler R, et al. Revisions to the staging and classification of mycosis fungoides and Sezary syndrome: a proposal of the International Society for Cutaneous Lymphomas (ISCL) and the cutaneous lymphoma task force of the European Organization of Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC). Blood. 2007;110:1713-1722.

7. Olsen EA, Whittaker S, Kim YH, Dubic M, Prince HM, Lessin SR, et al. Clinical end points and response criteria in mycosis fungoides and Sézary syndrome: a consensus statement of the International Society for Cutaneous Lymphomas, the United States Cutaneous Lymphoma Consortium, and the Cutaneous Lymphoma Task Force of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:2598-2607.

8. Intlekofer AM, Younes A. Precision therapy for lymphoma: current state and future directions. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2014;11:585-596.

9. Moskowitz CH, Schöder H, Teruya-Feldstein J, Sima C, Lasons A, Portlock CS, et al. Risk-adapted dose-dense immunochemotherapy determined by interim FDG-PET in advanced-stage diffuse large B-Cell lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:1896-1903.

10. Wilson WH, Dunleavy K, Pittaluga S, Hegde U, Grand N, Steinberg SM, et al. Phase II study of dose-adjusted EPOCH and rituximab in untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma with analysis of germinal center and post-germinal center biomarkers. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:2717-2724.

11. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Schwartz LH, Sargent D, Ford R, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:228-247.

12. Choi H, Charnsangavej C, Faria SC, Macapinlac HA, Burgess MA, Patel SR, et al. Correlation of computed tomography and positron emission tomography in patients with metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor treated at a single institution with imatinib mesylate: proposal of new computed tomography response criteria. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25: 1753-1759.

13. Cervera-Deval J. RECIST and the radiologist. Radiologia. 2014;56: 193-205.

14. Heckel F, Meine H, Moltz JH, Kuhnigk JM, Heverhagen JT, Kießling A, et al. Segmentation-based partial volume correction for volume estimation of solid lesions in CT. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2014;33:462-480.

15. Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA. From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:122-150.

16. Kulkarni NM, Pinho DF, Narayanan S, Kambadakone AR, Abramson JS, Sahani DV. Imaging for oncologic response assessment in lymphoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017;208:18-23.

17. Costelloe CM, Chuang HH, Madewell JE, Ueno NT. Criteria and bone metastases: RECIST 1.1, MDA and PERCIST. J Cancer. 2010;1:80-92.

18. Cheson BD, Fisher RI, Barrington SF, Cavalli F, Schwartz LH, Zucca E, et al. Recommendations for initial evaluation, staging, and response assessment of Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma: the Lugano classification. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:3059-3068.

19. Barrington SF, Mikhaeel NG, Kostakoglu L, Meignan M, Hutchings M, Müeller SP, et al. Role of imaging in the staging and response assessment of lymphoma: consensus of the International Conference on Malignant Lymphomas Imaging Working Group. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:3048-3058.

20. Meignan M, Gallamini A, Meignan M, Gallamini A, Haioun C. Report on the First International Workshop on Interim-PET-Scan in Lymphoma. Leuk Lymphoma. 2009;50:1257-1260.

21. Hoppe RT, Advani RH, Ai WZ, Ambinder RF, Aoun P, Armand P, et al. Hodgkin lymphoma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2018