SUV-measurements and patient-specific corrections in pediatric Hodgkin-lymphoma: Is there a benefit for PPV in early response assessment by FDG-PET?

Pediatric Blood and Cancer

Volumn 59, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 475-480

  Furth, Christian ^a   Meseck, Robert M ^a   Steffen, Ingo G ^a,b   Schoenberger, Stefan ^c   Denecke, Timm ^b   Henze, Günter ^b   Hautzel, Hubertus ^d   Hofheinz, Frank ^e   Großer, Oliver ^a   Hundsdoerfer, Patrick ^b   Amthauer, Holger ^a   Ruf, Juri ^a  

^a OTTO VON GUERICKE UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^b CHARITÉ UNIVERSITÄTSMEDIZIN BERLIN   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL DÜSSELDORF   (Germany)

^d HEINRICH HEINE UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^e INSTITUTE OF ION BEAM PHYSICS AND MATERIALS RESEARCH   (Germany)

Author keywords

FDG PET; Hodgkin lymphoma; Pediatrics; Response assessment; SUV

Indexed keywords

FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18; GLUCOSE;

ACCURACY; ADOLESCENT; ARTICLE; BODY SURFACE; BODY WEIGHT; CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY; CANCER RECURRENCE; CHILD; CHILDHOOD CANCER; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; GLUCOSE BLOOD LEVEL; HODGKIN DISEASE; HUMAN; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; MALE; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SCHOOL CHILD; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STANDARDIZED UPTAKE VALUE; TREATMENT RESPONSE;

ADOLESCENT; CHILD; FEMALE; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F18; HODGKIN DISEASE; HUMANS; MALE; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROGNOSIS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 84863862090     PISSN: 15455009     EISSN: 15455017     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pbc.24047     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Furth C, Amthauer H, Hautzel H, et al. Evaluation of interim-PET response criteria in paediatric Hodgkin lymphoma - Results for dedicated assessment criteria in a blinded, dual-centre read. Ann Oncol 2011; 5: 1198-1203.
2. Levine JM, Weiner M, Kelly KM. Routine use of PET scans after completion of therapy in pediatric Hodgkin disease results in a high false positive rate. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 2006; 28: 711-714.
3. Meany HJ, Gidvani VK, Minniti CP. Utility of PET scans to predict disease relapse in pediatric patients with Hodgkin lymphoma. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2007; 48: 399-402.
4. Miller E, Metser U, Avrahami G, et al. Role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in staging and follow-up of lymphoma in pediatric and young adult patients. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2006; 30: 689-694.
5. Hernandez-Pampaloni M, Takalkar A, Yu JQ, et al. F-18 FDG-PET imaging and correlation with CT in staging and follow-up of pediatric lymphomas. Pediatr Radiol 2006; 36: 524-531.
6. 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.
7. Rhodes MM, Delbeke D, Whitlock JA, et al. Utility of FDG-PET/CT in follow-up of children treated for Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 2006; 28: 300-306.
8. Furth C, Steffen IG, Amthauer H, et al. Early and late therapy response assessment with [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in pediatric Hodgkin's lymphoma: Analysis of a prospective multicenter trial. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 4385-4391.
9. Berkowitz A, Basu S, Srinivas S, et al. Determination of whole-body metabolic burden as a quantitative measure of disease activity in lymphoma: A novel approach with fluorodeoxyglucose-PET. Nucl Med Commun 2008; 29: 521-526.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. van Dalen JA, Visser EP, Vogel WV, et al. Impact of Ge-68/Ga-68-based versus CT-based attenuation correction on PET. Med Phys 2007; 34: 889-897.
13. DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: A nonparametric approach. Biometrics 1988; 44: 837-845.
14. Vriens D, Visser EP, de Geus-Oei LF, et al. Methodological considerations in quantification of oncological FDG PET studies. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010; 37: 1408-1425.
15. Boellaard R, Krak NC, Hoekstra OS, et al. Effects of noise, image resolution, and ROI definition on the accuracy of standard uptake values: A simulation study. J Nucl Med 2004; 45: 1519-1527.
16. Westerterp M, Pruim J, Oyen W, et al. Quantification of FDG PET studies using standardised uptake values in multi-centre trials: Effects of image reconstruction, resolution and ROI definition parameters. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2007; 34: 392-404.
17. 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.
18. Hoekstra CJ, Hoekstra OS, Stroobants SG, et al. Methods to monitor response to chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer with 18F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med 2002; 43: 1304-1309.
19. Krak NC, Boellaard R, Hoekstra OS, et al. Effects of ROI definition and reconstruction method on quantitative outcome and applicability in a response monitoring trial. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2005; 32: 294-301.
20. 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.
21. Küppers R. The biology of Hodgkińs Lymphoma. Nat Rev Cancer 2009; 9: 15-27.
22. Hellwig D, Graeter TP, Ukena D, et al. 18F-FDG PET for mediastinal staging of lung cancer: Which SUV threshold makes sense? J Nucl Med 2007; 48: 1761-1766.
23. Yeung HW, Sanches A, Squire OD, et al. Standardized uptake value in pediatric patients: An investigation to determine the optimum measurement parameter. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2002; 29: 61-66.
24. Altman DG, Bland JM. Diagnostic tests 2: Predictive values. BMJ 1994; 6947: 102.
25. Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, et al. From RECIST to PERCIST: Evolving Considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med 2009; Supplement 1: 122S-150S.