Clinical Radiology
Volume 63, Issue 2 , Pages 125-135 , February 2008

Response assessment in lymphoma

  • F.A. Hampson
    • ,
  • A.S. Shaw

      Affiliations

    • Corresponding Author InformationGuarantor and correspondent: A.S. Shaw, Box 218, Department of Radiology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK. Tel.: +44 1223 216516; fax: +44 1223 217847.

Received 19 July 2007 ,Revised 11 October 2007 ,Accepted 17 October 2007.

References 

  1. Lin AY, Tucker MA. Epidemiology of Hodgkin's disease and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. In:  Canellos G,  Lister TA,  Sklar JL editor. The lymphomas. London: WB Saunders; 1998;p. 43–61
  2. Jerusalam G, Hustinx R, Beguin Y, et al. Evaluation of therapy for lymphoma. Semin Nucl Med. 2005;35:186–196
  3. Cheson BD, Horning SJ, Coiffier B, et al. Report of an international workshop to standardize response criteria for non-Hodgkin's lymphomas. NCI Sponsored International Working Group. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:1244–1253
  4. Cheson BD, Pfistner B, Juweid ME, et al. Revised response criteria for malignant lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:579–586
  5. Callen PW, Korobkin M, Isherwood I. Computed tomography evaluation of the retrocrural prevetebral space. AJR Am J Roentegnol. 1977;129:907–910
  6. Carrington B. Lymph nodes. In:  Husband JES,  Reznek RH editor. Imaging in oncology. Vol. 2:Oxford: Isis Medical Media; 1998;p. 729–748
  7. Brodeur GM, Pritchard J, Berthold F, et al. Revisions of the International Criteria for Neuroblastoma Diagnosis, Staging and Response to treatment. J Clin Oncol. 1993;11:1466–1477
  8. Fuks JZ, Aisner J, Wiernik PH. Restaging laparotomy in the management of the non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Med Pediatr Oncol. 1982;10:429–438
  9. Stewart FM, Williamson BR, Innes DJ, et al. Residual tumour masses following treatment for advanced histiocytic lymphoma. Cancer. 1985;55:620–623
  10. Surbone A, Longo DL, DeVita VT, et al. Residual abdominal masses in aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after combination chemotherapy: significance and management. J Clin Oncol. 1988;6:1832–1837
  11. Coiffer B, Gisselbrecht C, Herbrecht R, et al. LNH-84 regimen: a multicenter study of intensive chemotherapy in 737 patients with aggressive malignant lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 1989;7:1018–1026
  12. Rini JN, Manalili EY, Hoffman MA, et al. F-18 FDG versus Ga-67 for detecting splenic involvement in Hodgkin's disease. Clin Nucl Med. 2002;27:572–577
  13. Kostakoglu L, Leonard JP, Kuji I, et al. Comparison of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and Ga-67 scintigraphy in evaluation of lymphoma. Cancer. 2002;94:879–888
  14. Wirth A, Seymour JF, Hicks RJ, et al. Fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography, gallium-67 scintigraphy, and conventional staging for Hodgkin's disease and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Am J Med. 2002;112:262–268
  15. Bar-Shalom R, Yefremov N, Haim N, et al. Camera-based FDG PET and 67Ga SPECT in evaluation of lymphoma: comparative study. Radiology. 2003;227:353–360
  16. Friedberg JW, Fischman A, Neuberg D, et al. FDG-PET is superior to gallium scintigraphy in staging and more sensitive in the follow-up of patients with de novo Hodgkin lymphoma: a blinded comparison. Leuk Lymphoma. 2004;45:85–92
  17. Saski M, Kuwabara Y, Koga H, et al. Clinical impact of whole body FDG-PET on the staging and therapeutic decision making for malignant lymphoma. Ann Nucl Med. 2002;16:337–345
  18. Shen YY, Kao A, Yen RF. Comparison of 18F-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography and gallium-67 citrate scintigraphy for detecting malignant lymphoma. Oncol Rep. 2002;9:321–325
  19. Bossche Van Den, Lambert B, De Winter F, et al. 18FDG PET versus high-dose 67Ga scintigraphy for restaging and treatment follow-up of lymphoma patients. Nucl Med Commun. 2002;23:1079–1083
  20. Hicks RJ, MacManus MP, Seymour JF. Initial staging of lymphoma with positron emission tomography and computed tomography. Semin Nucl Med. 2005;35:165–175
  21. Mikhaeel NG, Timothy AR, O'Doherty MJ, et al. 18-FDG-PET as a prognostic indicator in the treatment of aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma—comparison with CT. Leuk Lymphoma. 2000;39:543–553
  22. Bjurberg M, Gustavsson A, Ohlsson T, et al. FDG-PET in the detection of residual disease and relapse in patients with Hodgkin's lymphoma. Experience from a Swedish centre. Acta Oncologica. 2006;45:743–749
  23. Cremerius U, Fabry U, Neuerburg J, et al. Positron emission tomography with 18F-FDG to detect residual disease after therapy for malignant lymphoma. Nucl Med Commun. 1998;19:1055–1063
  24. Zijlstra JM, Lindauer-van der Werf G, Hoekstra OS, et al. 18F-fluoro- deoxyglucose positron emission tomography for post-treatment evaluation of malignant lymphoma: a systematic review. Haematologica. 2006;91:522–529
  25. Juweid ME, Wiseman GA, Vose JM, et al. Response assessment of aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma by integrated International Workshop Criteria and fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:4652–4661
  26. Kostakoglu L, Goldsmith SJ, Leonard JP, et al. FDG-PET after 1 cycle of therapy predicts outcome in diffuse large cell lymphoma and classic Hodgkin disease. Cancer. 2006;107:2678–2687
  27. Allen-Auerbach M, Quon A, Weber WA, et al. Comparison between 2-deoxy-2- [(18)F]fluoro-d-glucose positron-emission tomography and positron-emission tomography/computed tomography hardware fusion for staging of patients with lymphoma. Mol Imaging Biol. 2004;6:411–416
  28. Freudenberg LS, Abtoch G, Schutt P, et al. FDG-PET/CT in re-staging patients with lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004;31:325–329
  29. Jerusalem G, Beguin Y, Najjar F, et al. Positron emission tomography (PET) with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) for the staging of low-grade non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL). Ann Oncol. 2001;12:825–830
  30. Hoffmann M, Kletter K, Diemling M, et al. Positron emission tomography with fluorine-18-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose (F18-FDG) does not visualise extranodal B-cell lymphoma of the mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT)-type. Ann Oncol. 1999;10:1185–1189
  31. Spaepen K, Stroobants S, Dupont P, et al. Prognostic value of pre transplantation positron emission tomography using fluorine 18-fluorodeoxyglucose in patients with aggressive lymphoma treated with high-dose chemotherapy and stem cell transplantation. Blood. 2003;102:53–59
  32. Kazama T, Faria SC, Varavithya V, et al. FDG PET in the evaluation of treatment for lymphoma: clinical usefulness and pitfalls. RadioGraphics. 2005;25:191–207
  33. Patz EF, Lowe VJ, Hoffman JM, et al. Persistent or recurrent bronchogenic carcinoma: detection with PET and 2-[F-18]-2-deoxy-glucose. Radiology. 1994;191:379–382
  34. Inoue T, Kim EE, Komaki R, et al. Detecting recurrent or residual lung cancer with FDG-PET. J Nucl Med. 1995;36:788–793
  35. Bury T, Corhay JL, Duysinx B, et al. Value of FDG-PET in detecting residual or recurrent non small cell lung cancer. Eur Respir J. 1999;14:1376–1380
  36. Keidar Z, Haim N, Guralnik L, et al. PET/CT using 18F-FDG in suspected lung cancer recurrence: diagnostic value and impact on patient management. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:1640–1646
  37. Lapela M, Eigved A, Jyrkkio S, et al. Experience in qualitative and quantitative FDG PET in follow-up of patients with suspected recurrence from head and neck cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2000;36:858–867
  38. Lowe VJ, Boyd JH, Dunphy FR, et al. Surveillance for recurrent head and neck cancer using positron emission tomography. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18:651–658
  39. Greven KM, Williams DW, McGuirt WF, et al. Serial positron emission tomography scans following radiation therapy of patients with head and neck cancer. Head Neck. 2001;23:942–946
  40. Porceddu SV, Jarmolowski E, Hicks RJ, et al. Utility of positron emission tomography for detection of disease in residual neck nodes after (chemo)radiotherapy in head and neck cancer. Head Neck. 2005;27:175–181
  41. Yao M, Graham MM, Smith RB, et al. Value of FDG PET in assessment of treatment response and surveillance in head-and-neck cancer patients after intensity modulated radiation treatment: a preliminary report. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004;60:1410–1418
  42. Pieterman R, van Putten LWG, Meuzelaar JJ, et al. Preoperative staging of non- small cell lung cancer with positron-emission tomography. N Engl J Med. 2000;343:254–261
  43. Newman JS, Francis IR, Kaminski MS, et al. Imaging of lymphoma with PET with 2-[18F] fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose: correlation with CT. Radiology. 1994;190:111–116
  44. Avril N, Rose CA, Schelling M, et al. Breast imaging with postitron emission tomography and fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose: use and limitations. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18:3495–3502
  45. Tyler DS, Onaitis M, Kherani A, et al. Positron emission tomography scanning in malignant melanoma. Cancer. 2000;89:1019–1025
  46. Abrey LE, Batchelor TT, Ferreri AJM, et al. Report of an international workshop to standardize baseline evaluation and response criteria for primary CNS lymphoma. J clin Oncol. 2005;23:5034–5043
  47. Gaspirini MD, Balzarini L, Castellani MR, et al. Current role of gallium scan and magnetic resonance imaging in the management of mediastinal Hodgkin lymphoma. Cancer. 1993;72:577–582
  48. Devizzi L, Maffioli L, Bongante V, et al. Comparison of gallium scan, computed tomography and magnetic resonance in patients with mediastinal Hodgkin's disease. Ann Oncol. 1997;8(Suppl. 1):53–56
  49. Griffiths JR, Tate AR, Howe FA, et al. Magnetic resonance spectroscopy of cancer—practicalities of multi-centre trials and early results in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Eur J Cancer. 2002;38:2085–2093
  50. Aria-Mendoza F, Payne GS, Zakian KL, et al. In vivo 31P MR spectral patterns and reproducibility in cancer patients studied in a muti-institutional trial. NMR Biomed. 2006;19:504–512
  51. Rasey JS, Grierson JR, Wiens LW, et al. Validation of FLT uptake as a measure of thymidine kinase-1 activity in A549 carcinoma cells. J Nucl Med. 2002;43:1210–1217

PII: S0009-9260(07)00441-2

doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2007.10.005

Clinical Radiology
Volume 63, Issue 2 , Pages 125-135 , February 2008

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution