Correlative imaging strategies implementing CT, MRI, and PET for staging of childhood Hodgkin disease

Journal of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology

Volumn 28, Issue 8, 2006, Pages 501-512

  Furth, Christian ^a,c,d   Denecke, Timm ^a,b   Steffen, Ingo ^a   Ruf, Juri ^a   Voelker, Thomas ^a,c   Misch, Daniel ^c   Vondran, Florian ^a   Plotkin, Michail ^a   Stöver, Brigitte ^d   Henze, Günter ^c   Lemke, Arne Jörn ^b   Amthauer, Holger ^a  

^a Bereich Nuklearmedizin und PET Zentrum Berlin   (Germany)

^b Klinik fur Strahlenheilkunde   (Germany)

^c Klinik für Pädiatrie m S Onkologie und Hämatologie   (Germany)

^d CHARITÉ UNIVERSITÄTSMEDIZIN BERLIN   (Germany)

Author keywords

CT; Image fusion; MRI; Pediatric Hodgkin lymphoma; PET

Indexed keywords

FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18; GADOLINIUM PENTETATE; IOPROMIDE;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; CANCER STAGING; CHILD; CHILDHOOD CANCER; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HODGKIN DISEASE; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; MALE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

ADOLESCENT; CHILD; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; FEMALE; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F18; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HODGKIN DISEASE; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; NEOPLASM STAGING; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 33747514892     PISSN: 10774114     EISSN: 15363678     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.mph.0000212962.68007.12     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Dorffel W, Luders H, Ruhl U, et al. Preliminary results of the multicenter trial GPOH-HD 95 for the treatment of Hodgkin's disease in children and adolescents: analysis and outlook. Klin Padiatr. 2003;215:139-145.
2. Korholz D, Kluge R, Wickmann L, et al. Importance of F18-fluorodeoxy-D-2- glucose positron emission tomography (FDGPET) for staging and therapy control of Hodgkin's lymphoma in childhood and adolescence - consequences for the GPOH-HD 2003 protocol. Onkologie. 2003;26:489-493.
3. Korholz D, Claviez A, Hasenclever D, et al. The concept of the GPOH-HD 2003 therapy study for pediatric Hodgkin's disease: evolution in the tradition of the DAL/GPOH studies. Klin Padiatr. 2003;216:150-156.
4. Lieberz D, Sextro M, Paulus U, et al. How to restrict liver biopsy to high-risk patients in early-stage Hodgkin's disease. German Hodgkin's Lymphoma Study Group. Ann Hematol. 2000;79:73-78.
5. Partridge S, Timothy A, O'Doherty MJ, et al. 2-Fluorine-18-fluoro-2- deoxy-D glucose positron emission tomography in the pretreatment staging of Hodgkin's disease: influence on patient management in a single institution. Ann Oncol. 2000;11:1273-1279.
6. Golder WA. Lymph node diagnosis in oncologic imaging: a dilemma still waiting to be solved. Onkologie. 2004;27:194-199.
7. Reske SN, Kotzerke J. FDG-PET for clinical use. Results of the 3rd German Interdisciplinary Consensus Conference, "Onko-PET III," 21 July and 19 September 2000. Eur J Nucl Med. 2000;28:1707-1723.
8. Montravers F, McNamara D, Landman-Parker J, et al. [(18)F]FDG in childhood lymphoma: clinical utility and impact on management. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2002; 29:1155-1165.
9. Wickmann L, Luders H, Dorffel W. 18-FDG-PET-findings in children and adolescents with Hodgkin's disease: retrospective evaluation of the correlation to other imaging procedures in initial staging and to the predictive value of follow up examinations. Klin Padiatr. 2003;215:146-150.
10. Amthauer H, Furth C, Denecke T, et al. FDG-PET in 10 children with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: initial experience in staging and follow-up. Klin Padiatr. 2005;217:327-333.
11. Depas G, De Barsy C, Jerusalem G, et al. 18F-FDG PET in children with lymphomas. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2005;32:31-38.
12. Lemke AJ, Niehues SM, Hosten N, et al. Retrospective digital image fusion of multidetector CT and 18F-FDG PET: clinical value in pancreatic lesions - a prospective study with 104 patients. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:1279-1286.
13. Schoder H, Larson SM, Yeung HW. PET/CT in oncology: integration into clinical management of lymphoma, melanoma, and gastrointestinal malignancies. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:72S-81S.
14. Tsai CC, Tsai CS, Ng KK, et al. The impact of image fusion in resolving discrepant findings between FDG-PET and MRI/CT in patients with gynaecological cancers. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003;30:1674-1683.
15. Somer EJ, Marsden PK, Benatar NA, et al. PET-MR image fusion in soft tissue sarcoma: accuracy, reliability and practicality of interactive point-based and automated mutual information techniques. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003;30:54-62.
16. Townsend DW, Beyer T, Blodgett TM. PET/CT scanners: a hardware approach to image fusion. Semin Nucl Med. 2003;33:193-204.
17. Hany TF, Steinert HC, Goerres GW, et al. PET diagnostic accuracy: improvement with in-line PET-CT system: initial results. Radiology. 2002;225:575-581.
18. von Schulthess GK. Positron emission tomography versus positron emission tomography/computed tomography: from "unclear" to "new- clear" medicine. Mol Imaging Biol. 2004;6:183-187.
19. Piepsz A, Hahn K, Roca I, et al. A radiopharmaceuticals schedule for imaging in paediatrics. Paediatric Task Group European Association Nuclear Medicine. Eur J Nucl Med. 1990;17:127-129.
20. Rohlfing T, West JB, Beier J, et al. Registration of functional and anatomical MRI: accuracy assessment and application in navigated neurosurgery. Comput Aided Surg. 2000;5:414-425.
21. Studholme C, Hill D, Hawkes D. An overlap invariant entropy measure of 3D medical image alignment. Pattern Recognit. 1999;32:71-86.
22. Sobin LH, Wittekind C. TNM Classification of Malignant Tumours. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons; 2002.
23. Schiepers C, Filmont JE, Czernin J. PET for staging of Hodgkin's disease and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2002;30(Suppl 1):82-88.
24. Bangerter M, Moog F, Buchmann I, et al. Whole-body 2-[18F]-fluoro-2- deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDGPET) for accurate staging of Hodgkin's disease. Ann Oncol. 1998;9:1117-1122.
25. Jerusalem G, Beguin Y, Fassotte MF, et al. Whole-body positron emission tomography using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose compared to standard procedures for staging patients with Hodgkin's disease. Haematologica. 2001;86:266-273.
26. Naumann R, Beuthien-Baumann B, Reiss A, et al. Substantial impact of FDG PET imaging on the therapy decision in patients with early-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma. Br J Cancer. 2004;90:620-625.
27. Wegner EA, Barrington SF, Kingston JE, et al. The impact of PET scanning on management of paediatric oncology patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2005;32:23-30.
28. Hermann S, Wormanns D, Pixberg M, et al. Staging in childhood lymphoma: differences between FDG-PET and CT. Nuklearmedizin. 2005;44:1-7.
29. Dobert N, Menzel C, Hamscho N, et al. Atypical thoracic and supraclavicular FDG-uptake in patients with Hodgkin's and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004;48:33-38.
30. Barrington SF, O'Doherty MJ. Limitations of PET for imaging lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003;30(Suppl 1):S117-S127.
31. Amthauer H, Denecke T, Rohlfing T, et al. Value of image fusion using single photon emission computed tomography with integrated low dose computed tomography in comparison with a retrospective voxel-based method in neuroendocrine tumours. Eur Radiol. 2005;15:1456-1462.
32. Tatsumi M, Cohade C, Nakamoto Y, et al. Direct comparison of FDG PET and CT findings in patients with lymphoma: initial experience. Radiology. 2005;237:1038-1045.