FDG-PET is prognostic and predictive for progression-free survival in relapsed follicular lymphoma: exploratory analysis of the GAUSS study

References

• Le Dortz L, De Guibert S, Bayat S, et al. Diagnostic and prognostic impact of 18F-FDG PET/CT in follicular lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:2307–2314.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bishu S, Quigley JM, Bishu SR, et al. Predictive value and diagnostic accuracy of F-18-fluoro-deoxy-glucose positron emission tomography treated grade 1 and 2 follicular lymphoma. Leuk Lymphoma. 2007;48:1548–1555.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trotman J, Fournier M, Lamy T, et al. Positron emission tomography–computed tomography (PET-CT) after induction therapy is highly predictive of patient outcome in follicular lymphoma: analysis of PET-CT in a subset of PRIMA trial participants. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:3194–3200.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dupuis J, Berriolo-Riedinger A, Julian A, et al. Impact of [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography response evaluation in patients with high-tumor burden follicular lymphoma treated with immunochemotherapy: a prospective study from the Groupe d’Etudes des Lymphomes de l’Adulte and GOELAMS. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:4317–4322.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsukamoto N, Kojima M, Hasegawa M, et al. The usefulness of (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography ((18)F-FDG-PET) and a comparison of (18)F-FDG-PET with (67)gallium scintigraphy in the evaluation of lymphoma: Relation to histologic subtypes based on the World Health Organization classification. Cancer. 2007;110:652–659.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wirth A, Foo M, Seymour JF, et al. Impact of [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography on staging and management of early-stage follicular non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;71:213–219.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Janikova A, Bolcak K, Pavlik T, et al. Value of [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the management of follicular lymphoma: the end of a dilemma? Clin Lymphoma Myeloma. 2008;8:287–293.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Scott AM, Gunawardana DH, Wong J, et al. Positron emission tomography changes management, improves prognostic stratification and is superior to gallium scintigraphy in patients with low-grade lymphoma: results of a multicentre prospective study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;36:347–353.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luminari S, Biasoli I, Arcaini L, et al. The use of FDG-PET in the initial staging of 142 patients with follicular lymphoma: a retrospective study from the FOLL05 randomized trial of the Fondazione Italiana Linfomi. Ann Oncol. 2013;24:2108–2112.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith SD, Redman M, Dunleavy K. FDG PET-CT in follicular lymphoma: a case-based evidence review. Blood. 2015;125:1078–1082.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Solal-Celigny P, Roy P, Colombat P, et al. Follicular lymphoma international prognostic index. Blood. 2004;104:1258–1265.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Federico M, Bellei M, Marcheselli L, et al. Follicular lymphoma international prognostic index 2: a new prognostic index for follicular lymphoma developed by the international follicular lymphoma prognostic factor project. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:4555–4562.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Solal-Celigny P, Lepage E, Brousse N, et al. Doxorubicin-containing regimen with or without interferon alfa-2b for advanced follicular lymphomas: final analysis of survival and toxicity in the Groupe d’Etude des Lymphomes Folliculaires 86 Trial. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16:2332–2338.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Casulo C, Byrtek M, Dawson KL, et al. Early relapse of follicular lymphoma after rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone defines patients at high risk for death: an analysis from the National LymphoCare Study. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:2516–2522.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mozessohn L, Cheung MC, Crump M. Chemoimmunotherapy resistant follicular lymphoma: predictors of resistance, association with transformation and prognosis. Leuk Lymphoma. 2014;55:2502–2507.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young H, Baum R, Cremerius U, et al. Measurement of clinical and subclinical tumor response using [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography: review and 1999 EORTC recommendations. Eur J Cancer. 1999;35:1773–1782.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barrington SF, Mikhaeel NG, Kostakoglu L, et al. Role of imaging in the staging and response assessment of lymphoma: consensus of the International Conference on Malignant Lymphomas Imaging Working Group. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:3048–3058.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Casasnovas RO, Meignan M, Berriolo-Riedinger A, et al. SUVmax reduction improves early prognosis value of interim positron emission tomography scans in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Blood. 2011;118:37–43.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larson S, Erdi Y, Akhurst T, et al. Tumor treatment response based on visual and quantitative changes in globals using PET-FDG imaging, the visual response score and the change in total lesion glycolysis. Clin Positron Imaging. 1999;2:159–171.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hatt M, Cheze Le Rest C, Pradier O, et al. Automatic PET tumor delineation for patient’s follow-up and therapy assessment. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:182.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheebsumon P, Yagub M, van Velden FH, et al. Impact of [18F]FDG PET imaging parameters on automatic tumour delineation: need for improved tumour delineation methodology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:2136–2144.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sehn LH, Goy A, Offner FC, et al. Randomized phase II trial comparing obinutuzumab (GA101) with rituximab in patients with relapsed CD20+ indolent B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma: final analysis of the GAUSS study. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:3467–3474.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nehmeh SA, El-Zeftawy H, Greco C, et al. An iterative technique to segment PET lesions using a Monte Carlo based mathematical model. Med Phys. 2009;36:4803–4809.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meignan MA, Sasanelli MC, Casasnovas RO, et al. Metabolic tumor volumes measured at staging in lymphoma: methodological evaluation on phantom experiments and patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:1113–1122.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheson BD, Pfistner B, Juweid ME, et al. Revised response criteria for malignant lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:579–586.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Breukelen GJ. ANCOVA versus change from baseline: more power in randomized studies, more bias in nonrandomized studies [corrected]. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59:920–925.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alcantara M, Dupuis J, Mareschal S, et al. PET/CT before autologous stem cell transplantation predicts outcome in refractory/relapsed follicular lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:215–221.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luminari S, Biasoli I, Versari A, et al. The prognostic role of post-induction FDG-PET in patients with follicular lymphoma: a subset analysis from the FOLL05 trial of the Fondazione Italiana Linfomi (FIL). Ann Oncol. 2014;25:442–447.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tychyj-Pinel C, Ricard F, Fulham M, et al. PET/CT assessment in follicular lymphoma using standardized criteria: central review in the PRIMA study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:408–415.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trotman J, Luminari S, Boussetta S, et al. Prognostic value of PET-CT after first-line therapy in patients with follicular lymphoma: a pooled analysis of central scan review in three multicentre studies. Lancet Haematol. 2014;1:e17–e27.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barrington SF, Qian W, Somer EJ, et al. Concordance between four European centres of PET reporting criteria designed for use in multicentre trials in Hodgkin lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:1824–1833.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meignan M, Versari A, Ségolène Cottereau A, et al. Baseline metabolic tumour volume predicts outcome in high tumor burden follicular lymphoma. A pooled analysis of three multicenter studies. Blood. 2015;126:3919.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim J, Hong J, Kim SG, et al. Prognostic value of metabolic tumor volume estimated by (18) F-FDG positron emission tomography/computed tomography in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma of stage II or III disease. Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;48:187–195.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Song MK, Chung JS, Shin HJ, et al. Clinical significance of metabolic tumor volume by PET/CT in stages II and III of diffuse large B cell lymphoma without extranodal site involvement. Ann Hematol. 2012;91:697–703.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Song MK, Chung JS, Lee JJ, et al. Metabolic tumor volume by positron emission tomography/computed tomography as a clinical parameter to determine therapeutic modality for early stage Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Cancer Sci. 2013;104:1656–1661.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hussien AE, Furth C, Schönberger S, et al. FDG-PET response prediction in pediatric Hodgkin’s lymphoma: impact of metabolically defined tumor volumes and individualized SUV measurements on the positive predictive value. Cancers (Basel). 2015;7:287–304.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kanoun S, Rossi C, Berriolo-Reidinger A, et al. Baseline metabolic tumour volume is an independent prognostic factor in Hodgkin lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:1735–1743.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharma P, Gupta A, Patel C, et al. Pediatric lymphoma: metabolic tumor burden as a quantitative index for treatment response evaluation. Ann Nucl Med. 2012;26:58–66.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahraman D, Scheffler M, Zander T, et al. Quantitative analysis of response to treatment with erlotinib in advanced non-small cell lung cancer using 18F-FDG and 3’-deoxy-3’-18F-fluorothymidine PET. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:1871–1877.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tseng D, Rachakonda LP, Su Z, et al. Interim-treatment quantitative PET parameters predict progression and death among patients with Hodgkin’s disease. Radiat Oncol. 2012;7:5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Esfahani SA, Heidari P, Halpern EF, et al. Baseline total lesion glycolysis measured with (18)F-FDG PET/CT as a predictor of progression-free survival in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: a pilot study. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;3:272–281.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Xie M, Wu K, Liu Y, et al. Predictive value of F-18 FDG PET/CT quantization parameters in diffuse large B cell lymphoma: a meta-analysis with 702 participants. Med Oncol. 2015;32:446.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adams HJ, de Klerk JM, Fijnheer R, et al. Prognostic superiority of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network International Prognostic Index over pretreatment whole-body volumetric-metabolic FDG-PET/CT metrics in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Eur J Haematol. 2015;94:532–539.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gallicchio R, Mansueto G, Simeon V, et al. F-18 FDG PET/CT quantization parameters as predictors of outcome in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Eur J Haematol. 2014;92:382–389.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pyo J, Won Kim K, Jacene HA, et al. End-therapy positron emission tomography for treatment response assessment in follicular lymphoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19:6566–6577.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hatt M, Visvikis D, Le Rest CC. Autocontouring versus manual contouring. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:658–659.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar