Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
  Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size Users Online: 771  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 18  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 154-159

Predictors of metabolic response in propensity-matched lymphoma patients on interim 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission tomography/computed tomography using standardized imaging and reporting protocol: Do we really have one?


1 Department of Radiology, The Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan
2 Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan
3 Department of Medicine, Dr. Ruth Pfau Hospital, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan
4 Department of Radiation Oncology, The Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan

Correspondence Address:
Maseeh Uz Zaman
Department of Radiology, The Aga Khan University Hospital Karachi
Pakistan
Login to access the Email id


DOI: 10.4103/wjnm.WJNM_41_18

PMID: 31040747

Rights and Permissions

The purpose of this prospective study was to determine metabolic response predictor(s) in propensity-matched patients having lymphomas who had baseline and interim18fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron-emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) using strict standardized imaging and reporting protocols. This prospective study was conducted at PET/CT section of a JCI-accredited healthcare facility from April 2017 to February 2018. Patients with baseline and interim18FDG PET/CT scans using standardized protocol were selected. Interim scans were performed not earlier than 2nd or later than 4th chemotherapy. During the study period, 97 of 112 consecutive patients with lymphomas (Hodgkin-HL: 32/97 and Non-Hodgkin-NHL: 65/97) were included in the study. Mean age of cohort was 45 ± 19 years (71% male and 29% female) having a mean body mass index (BMI) of 25.57 ± 5.54 Kg/m2 having Stage I (21%), Stage II (18%), Stage III (16%), and Stage IV (45%) disease. Bulky disease was found in 14% and18FDG-avid marrow deposits in 33%. Standardized PET/CT imaging protocol as per EANM guidelines was strictly adopted for baseline and interim studies. %Δ changes in fasting blood sugar,18FDG dose, uptake time, and liver SUV mean were 3.96%, 2.83%, 2.49%, and 12.15%, respectively. Based on Deauville's scoring, cohort was divided into responders having Score 1–3 (49/97) and nonresponders having Score 4–5 (48/97). The demographic analysis found no significant difference between responders and nonresponders for age, gender, BMI, staging, bulky disease or marrow involvement, and study protocol. No significant coefficient or odd ratios were found on multivariate analysis for age, gender, maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax), size, BMI, NHL, and advance disease (Stage III and IV) in both groups (χ2: 5.12; receiver operating characteristic [95% confidence interval]: 0.616 [0.51–0.713]; P=0.528). Among responders, baseline SUVmaxand tumor size had a direct correlation with a metabolic response on iPET, more pronounced in NHL than HL groups (SUVmax: 13.4 vs. 19.5 and size: 52 vs. 87 mm; P < 0.0001). We conclude that no significant predictor was found for response in propensity-matched patients with lymphomas (both HL and NHL) who had baseline and interim PET/CTs acquired with a standardized protocol. However, NHL responders were found to have higher baseline median SUVmaxand larger lesion size as compared to HL responders. Although, these data are not in concordance with published findings but need to be validated with larger studies using standardized imaging and reporting protocols in propensity-matched patients with lymphomas.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed196    
    Printed15    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded31    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal