Monitoring response in lymphomas: qualitative, quantitative, or what else?

References

• Barrington AF, Kluge R. FDG PET for therapy monitoring in Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphomas. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44:97–S110.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meignan M, Gallamini A, Meignan M, et al. Report on the First International Workshop on Interim-PET-Scan in lymphoma. Leukemia & Lymphoma. 2009;50:1257–1260.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biggi A, Gallamini A, Chauvie S. International validation study for interim PET in ABVD treated, advanced stage Hodgkin lymphoma: interpretation criteria and concordamnce rate among reviewers. J Nulc Med. 2013;54:683–690.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Itti E, Meignan M, Berriolo-Riedinger A, et al. An international confirmatory study of the prognostic value of earle PET/CT in diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma: camparison between Deauville criteria and ΔSUVmax. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:1312–1320.
   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 lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(27):3048–3058.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheson BD, Fisher RI, Barrington SF, et al. Recommendations for initial evaluation, staging, and response assessment of Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma: the Lugano classification. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:3059–3068.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barrington SF, Mikhaeel NG. When should FDG-PET be used in the modern management of lymphoma?. Br J Haematol. 2014;164:315–328.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oki Y, Chuang H, Chasen B, et al. The prognostic value of interim positron emission tomography scan in patients with classical Hodgkin lymphoma. Br J Haematol. 2014;165:112–116.
   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
• Kluge R, Chavdarova L, Hoffmann M, et al. Inter-reader reliability of early FDG-PET/CT response assessment using the Deauville scale after 2 cycles of intensive chemotherapy (OEPA) in Hodgkin’s lymphoma. PLoS One. 2016;11(3):e0149072.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ceriani L, Barrington S, Biggi A, et al. Training improves the interobserver agreement of the expert positron emission tomography review panel in primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma: interim analysis in the ongoing Interantional Extranodal Lymphoma Study Group-37 study. Hematol Oncol. 2017;35(4):548–553.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vanderhoek M, Perlman SB, Jeraj R. Impact of different standadized uptake value measure on PET-based quantification of treatment response. J Nucl Med. 2013;54:1188–1194.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Velasquez LM, Boellaard R, Kollia G, et al. Repeatability of 18F-FDG in a multicentere Phase I study of patients with advanced gastroeintestinal malignancies. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:1646–1654.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Itti E, Lin C, Dupuis J, et al. Prognostic value of interim 18F-FDG PET in patients with diffuse large B cell lymphoma: SUVbased assessment at 4 cycles of chemotherapy. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:527–533.
   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
• Casasnovas RO, Ysebaert L, Thieblemont C, et al. FDG-PET-driven consolidation strategy in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: final results of a randomized phase 2 study. Blood. 2017;130:1315–1326.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duehrsen U, Müller SP, Rekowski J, et al. Positron Emission Tomography (PET) guided therapy of aggressive lumphomas – interim PET-based outcome prediction and treatment changes in patients with B cell lymphomas partecipating in the PETAL trial. Blood. 2016;128:1857.
   Google Scholar
• Mikhaeel NG, O’Doherty MJ, Barrington S, et al. Comparison of quantitative and qualitative criteria in the UK NCRI PET study in DLBCL: an interim analysis. International Workshop on Interim PET in Lymphoma. Menton. France. 2011
   Google Scholar
• Biggi A, Bergesio F, Chauvie S, et al. Concomitant semi-quantitative and visual analysis improves the predictive value on treatment outcome of interim18F-fluorodoxyglucose/Positron emission tomography in advanced Hodgkin lymphoma. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017, DOI:10.23736/S1824-4785.17.02993-4
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rossi C, Kanoun S, Berriolo-Riedinger A, et al. Interim 18F-FDG PET SUVmax reduction is superior to visual analysis in predicting outcome early in Hodgkin lymphoma patients. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:569–573.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Annunziata S, Cuccaro A, Calcagni ML, et al. Interim FDG-PET/CT in Hodgkin lymphoma: the prognostic ole of the ratio between target lesion and liver SUVMax (rPET). Ann Nucl Med. 2016;30:588–592.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hasenclever D, Kurch L, Mauz-Körholz C, et al. et qPET-a quantitative extension of the Deauville scale to assess response in interim FDG-PET scans in lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:1301–1308.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gallamini A, Hutchings M, Rigacci L, et al. Early interim 2-18F-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomogrpahy is prognostically superior to international prognostic score in advanced stage Hodgkin’s lymphoma: a report from a joint Italian-Danish study. JCO. 2007;25:3746–3752.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stauss J, Franzius C, Pfluger T, et al. Guidelines for 18F-FDG PET and PET-CT imaging in paediatric oncology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;35:1581–1588.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boellaard R, Delgado-Bolton R, Oyen WJG, et al. FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:328–354.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar