Volume 14 Supplement 1

Proceedings of the International Cancer Imaging Society (ICIS) 14th Annual Teaching Course

Open Access

FDG-PET in lymphoma

  • Michel Meignan1
Cancer Imaging201414(Suppl 1):O23

https://doi.org/10.1186/1470-7330-14-S1-O23

Published: 9 October 2014

FDG-PET has changed lymphoma management at staging and for response assessment due to its capability to improve disease characterization and treatment selection. New recommendations have been made by the ICML working group in 2014. FDG-PET is now recommended for staging in the vast majority of lymphoma since almost all types of lymphoma are FDG-avid. It has been shown recently that FDG-PET due to its high sensitivity for bone marrow involvement in Hodgkin lymphoma can obviate the bone marrow biopsy. In addition FDG PET may be used to target biopsy and based on the local SUVmax to detect transformation.

For response assessment after treatment or during chemotherapy the HIP2007 criteria have now been replaced by the Deauville criteria using a 5-point scale. Initially proposed for the evalaution of interim PET these criteria are now extended for end treatment evaluation. The residual activity observed after treatment is scored against different levels of backgroung i.e: 1.no uptake, 2. uptake uptake ≤ mediastinum but ≤ liver, 3. uptake > mediastinum, 4. uptake moderately higher than liver, 5. uptake markedly higher than liver and/or new lesions. A score 4 has been chosen as the threshold for positivity both at interim and end treatment. The value of this choice has been demonstrated in validation studies. Using these criteria FDG PET has demonstrated its prognostic value early in the course of the treatment or at end treatment in Hodgkin lymphoma, Diffuse large B cell lymphoma and Follicular Lymphoma. A tailored therapy based on interim PET is under study in many ongoing trials but at the present time it is not recommendend to change therapy on the basis of the results of an interim FDG-PET. Quantitative analysis of metabolic volume at staging or Δ SUVmax response assessment and their prognostic values and various trends in the future will be discussed.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
LYSA Imaging group, Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Paris Est Créteil

References

  1. Meignan M, Gallamini A, Itti E, Barrington S, Haioun C, Polliack A: Report on the Third International Workshop on Interim Positron Emission Tomography in Lymphoma held in Menton, France, 26–27 September 2011 and Menton 2011 consensus. Leuk Lymphoma 2012,53(10):1876–1881. 10.3109/10428194.2012.677535PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Barrington S, Mikhaeel G, Kostakoglu L, Meignan M, Müeller S, Schwartz LH, Zucca E, Fisher RI, Trotman 1 J, Hoekstra OS, Hicks RJ, O’Doherty MJ, Hustinx R, Biggi A, Cheson BD: The role of imaging in the staging and response assessment of lymphoma: consensus of the ICML Imaging Working Group. J Clin Oncol 2014.Google Scholar

Copyright

© Meignan; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Advertisement