Establishment of a UK-wide network to facilitate the acquisition of quality assured FDG-PET data for clinical trials in lymphoma

Annals of Oncology

Volumn 22, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 739-745

  Barrington, S F ^a   MacKewn, J E ^a   Schleyer, P ^a   Marsden, P K ^a   Mikhaeel, N G ^b   Qian, W ^c   Mouncey, P ^d   Patrick, P ^d   Popova, B ^d   Johnson, P ^e   Radford, J ^f,g   O'Doherty, M J ^a  

^a KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b GUY'S AND ST THOMAS' NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

^c MRC CLINICAL TRIALS UNIT   (United Kingdom)

^d IMPERIAL CANCER RESEARCH FUND   (United Kingdom)

^e Cancer Research UK and NIHR Southampton Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre   (United Kingdom)

^f CHRISTIE HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^g UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Clinical trial; Core laboratory; Hodgkin's lymphoma; Non Hodgkin's lymphoma; Positron emission tomography; Quality control quality assurance

Indexed keywords

BLEOMYCIN; CYCLOPHOSPHAMIDE; DACARBAZINE; DACTINOMYCIN; DOXORUBICIN; ETOPOSIDE; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18; PREDNISONE; PROCARBAZINE; RITUXIMAB; VINBLASTINE; VINCRISTINE;

ADULT; ARTICLE; CANCER STAGING; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DRUG DOSE ESCALATION; HODGKIN DISEASE; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; LARGE CELL LYMPHOMA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM; MULTIPLE CYCLE TREATMENT; NONHODGKIN LYMPHOMA; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGNOSIS; QUALITY CONTROL; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RADIATION DEPTH DOSE; UNITED KINGDOM; VALIDATION PROCESS;

EID: 79952011010     PISSN: 09237534     EISSN: 15698041     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdq428     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Juweid ME, Stroobants S, Hoekstra OS et al. Use of positron emission tomography for response assessment of lymphoma: consensus of the imaging subcommittee of international harmonization project in lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25: 571-578.
2. Gallamini A, Rigacci L, Merli F et al. The predictive value of positron emission tomography scanning performed after two courses of standard therapy on treatment outcome in advanced stage Hodgkin's disease. Haematologica 2006; 91: 475-481.
3. Gallamini A, Hutchings M, Rigacci L et al. Early interim 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-Dglucose positron emission tomography is prognostically superior to international prognostic score in advanced-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma: a report from a joint Italian Danish study. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25: 3746-3752.
4. Hutchings M, Loft A, Hansen M et al. FDG-PET after two cycles of chemotherapy predicts treatment failure and progression-free survival in Hodgkin lymphoma. Blood 2006; 107: 52-59.
5. Mikhaeel NG. Use of FDG-PET to monitor response to chemotherapy and radiotherapy in patients with lymphomas. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2006; 33 (Suppl 1): 22-26.
6. Itti E, Lin C, Dupuis J et al. Prognostic value of interim 18F-FDG PET in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: SUV-based assessment at 4 cycles of chemotherapy. J Nucl Med 2009; 50: 527-533.
7. Lin C, Itti E, Haioun C et al. Early 18F-FDG PET for prediction of prognosis in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: SUV-based assessment versus visual analysis. J Nucl Med 2007; 48: 1626-1632.
8. Mikhaeel NG, Hutchings M, Fields PA et al. FDG-PET after two to three cycles of chemotherapy predicts progression-free and overall survival in high-grade non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Ann Oncol 2005; 16: 1514-1523.
9. Boellaard R, Oyen WJ, Hoekstra CJ et al. The Netherlands protocol for standardisation and quantification of FDG whole body PET studies in multi-centre trials. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2008; 35: 2320-2333.
10. Geworski L, Knoop BO, de Wit M et al. Multicenter comparison of calibration and cross calibration of PET scanners. J Nucl Med 2002; 43: 635-639.
11. Scheuermann JS, Saffer JR, Karp JS et al. Qualification of PET scanners for use in multicenter cancer clinical trials: the American College of Radiology Imaging Network experience. J Nucl Med 2009; 50: 1187-1193.
12. Shankar LK, Hoffman JM, Bacharach S et al. Consensus recommendations for the use of 18F-FDG PET as an indicator of therapeutic response in patients in National Cancer Institute Trials. J Nucl Med 2006; 47: 1059-1066.
13. Gorenberg M, Hallett W, O'Doherty MJ. Does diabetes affect [F-18]FDG standardised uptake values in lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2002; 29: 1324-1327.
14. Hallett W, Marsden P, Cronin B, O'Doherty MJ. Effect of corrections for blood glucose and body size on [F-18]FDG PET standardised uptake values in lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2001; 28: 919-922.
15. Keyes JW Jr., Keyes JWJ. SUV: standard uptake or silly useless value? J Nucl Med 1995; 36: 1836-1839.
16. Nahmias C, Wahl LM. Reproducibility of standardized uptake value measurements determined by 18F-FDG PET in malignant tumors. J Nucl Med 2008; 49: 1804-1808.
17. Recommended Standards for the Routine Performance Testing of Diagnostic X-Ray Imaging Systems. 2005; IPEM Report 91. Institute of Physics and Medical Engineering in Medicine, York, UK.
18. Lodge M, Lucas J, Marsden P et al. A PET study of (18)FDG uptake in soft tissue masses. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 1999; 26: 22-30.
19. Berthelsen AK, Holm S, Loft A et al. PET/CT with intravenous contrast can be used for PET attenuation correction in cancer patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2005; 32: 1167-1175.
20. Barrington SF, Qian W, Somer E et al. Concordance between four European Centres of PET reporting criteria designed for use in multicentre trials in Hodgkin lymphoma European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010; May 27. [Epub ahead of print] DOI 10.1007/s00259-010-1490-5.
21. Boellaard R, O'Doherty MJ, Weber WA et al. FDG PET and PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour PET imaging: version 1.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010; 37: 181-200.
22. Young H, Baum R, Cremerius U et al. Measurement of clinical and subclinical tumour response using [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography: review and 1999 EORTC recommendations. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) PET Study Group. Eur J Cancer 1999; 35: 1773-1782.
23. Velasquez LM, Boellaard R, Kollia G et al. Repeatability of 18F-FDG PET in a multicenter phase I study of patients with advanced gastrointestinal malignancies. J Nucl Med 2009; 50: 1646-1654.
24. Spaepen K, Stroobants S, Dupont P et al. [(18)F]FDG PET monitoring of tumour response to chemotherapy: does [(18)F]FDG uptake correlate with the viable tumour cell fraction? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003; 30: 682-688.
25. Meignan M, Gallamini A, Haioun C. Report on the first international workshop on interim-PET scan in lymphoma. Leuk Lymphoma 2009; 50: 1257-1260.
26. Hutchings M, Barrington SF. PET/CT for therapy response assessment in lymphoma. J Nucl Med 2009; 50: 21S-230.
27. Hutchings M, Mikhaeel NG, Fields PA et al. Prognostic value of interim FDG-PET after two or three cycles of chemotherapy in Hodgkin lymphoma. Ann Oncol 2005; 16: 1160-1168.
28. Isasi CR, Lu P, Blaufox MD et al. A metaanalysis of 18F-2-deoxy-2-fluoro-Dglucose positron emission tomography in the staging and restaging of patients with lymphoma. Cancer 2005; 104: 1066-1074.
29. Carr R, Barrington SF, Madan B et al. Detection of lymphoma in bone marrow by whole-body positron emission tomography. Blood 1998; 91: 3340-3346.
30. Rutherford SC, Andemariam B, Philips SM et al. FDG-PET in prediction of splenectomy findings in patients with known or suspected lymphoma. Leuk Lymphoma 2008; 49: 719-726.