Efficacy of routine surveillance with positron emission tomography/computed tomography in aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma in complete remission: status in a single center

References

• Lister TA, Crowther D, Sutcliffe SB, et al. Report of a committee convened to discuss the evaluation and staging of patients with Hodgkin's disease: Cotswolds meeting. J Clin Oncol 1989;7:1630–1636.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torrey MJ, Poen JC, Hoppe RT. Detection of relapse in early-stage Hodgkin's disease: role of routine follow-up studies. J Clin Oncol 1997;15:1123–1130.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weeks JC, Yeap BY, Canellos GP, Shipp MA. Value of follow-up procedures in patients with large-cell lymphoma who achieve a complete remission. J Clin Oncol 1991;9:1196–1203.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Radford JA, Eardley A, Woodman C, Crowther D. Follow up policy after treatment for Hodgkin's disease: too many clinic visits and routine tests? A review of hospital records. BMJ 1997;314:343–346.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guppy AE, Tebbutt NC, Norman A, Cunningham D. The role of surveillance CT scans in patients with diffuse large B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Leuk Lymphoma 2003;44:123–125.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dryver ET, Jernström H, Tompkins K, Buckstein R, Imrie KR. Follow-up of patients with Hodgkin's disease following curative treatment: the routine CT scan is of little value. Br J Cancer 2003;89:482–486.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liedtke M, Hamlin PA, Moskowitz CH, Zelenetz AD. Surveillance imaging during remission identifies a group of patients with more favorable aggressive NHL at time of relapse: a retrospective analysis of a uniformly-treated patient population. Ann Oncol 2006;17:909–913.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guadagnolo BA, Punglia RS, Kuntz KM, Mauch PM, Ng AK. Cost-effectiveness analysis of computerized tomography in the routine follow-up of patients after primary treatment for Hodgkin's disease. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:4116–4122.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Wit M, Bumann D, Beyer W, Herbst K, Clausen M, Hossfeld DK. Whole-body positron emission tomography (PET) for diagnosis of residual mass in patients with lymphoma. Ann Oncol 1997;8(Suppl. 1):s57–s60.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mikhaeel NG, Timothy AR, Hain SF, O'Doherty MJ. 18-FDG-PET for the assessment of residual masses on CT following treatment of lymphomas. Ann Oncol 2000;11(Suppl. 1):147–150.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cherry SR. The 2006 Henry N. Wagner Lecture: Of mice and men (and positrons)–advances in PET imaging technology. J Nucl Med 2006;47:1735–1745.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allen-Auerbach M, Quon A, Weber WA, et al. Comparison between 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-D-glucose positron emission tomography and positron emission tomography/computed tomography hardware fusion for staging of patients with lymphoma. Mol Imaging Biol 2004;6:411–416.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bar-Shalom R, Yefremov N, Guralnik L, et al. Clinical performance of PET/CT in evaluation of cancer: additional value for diagnostic imaging and patient management. J Nucl Med 2003;44:1200–1209.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hutchings M, Specht L. PET/CT in the management of haematological malignancies. Eur J Haematol 2008;80:369–380.
   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
• DRG tariffs from Ministry of Interior and Health, Denmark [Internet] [cited 15 May 2010]. Available from: im.dk/Sundhed/DRG-systemet/Takster/2010.aspx
   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
• Mikhaeel NG, Timothy AR, O'Doherty MJ, Hain S, Maisey MN. 18-FDG-PET as a prognostic indicator in the treatment of aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma–comparison with CT. Leuk Lymphoma 2000;39:543–553.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spaepen K, Stroobants S, Dupont P, et al. Prognostic value of positron emission tomography (PET) with fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose ([18F]FDG) after first-line chemotherapy in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: is [18F]FDG-PET a valid alternative to conventional diagnostic methods? J Clin Oncol 2001;19:414–419.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Juweid ME, Wiseman GA, Vose JM, et al. Response assessment of aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma by integrated International Workshop Criteria and fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:4652–4661.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jerusalem G, Beguin Y, Fassotte MF, et al. Early detection of relapse by whole-body positron emission tomography in the follow-up of patients with Hodgkin's disease. Ann Oncol 2003;14:123–130.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zinzani PL, Stefoni V, Tani M, et al. Role of [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography scan in the follow-up of lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:1781–1787.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee AI, Zuckerman DS, Van den Abbeele AD, et al. Surveillance imaging of Hodgkin lymphoma patients in first remission: a clinical and economic analysis. Cancer 2010;116:3835–3842.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jatoi I, Zhu K, Shah M, Lawrence W. Psychological distress in U.S. women who have experienced false-positive mammograms. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2006;100:191–200.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Katz DA, Jarrard DF, McHorney CA, Hillis SL, Wiebe DA, Fryback DG. Health perceptions in patients who undergo screening and workup for prostate cancer. Urology 2007;69:215–220.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang B, Law MW, Khong PL. Whole-body PET/CT scanning: estimation of radiation dose and cancer risk. Radiology 2009;251:166–174.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tubiana M, Feinendegen LE, Yang C, Kaminski JM. The linear no-threshold relationship is inconsistent with radiation biologic and experimental data. Radiology 2009;251:13–22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nakamoto Y, Nogami M, Sugihara R, Sugimura K, Senda M, Togashi K. Is contrast material needed after treatment of malignant lymphoma in positron emission tomography/computed tomography? Ann Nucl Med 2010 Oct 19. [Epub ahead of print].
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petrausch U, Samaras P, Veit-Haibach P, et al. Hodgkin's lymphoma in remission after first-line therapy: which patients need FDG-PET/CT for follow-up? Ann Oncol 2010;21:1053–1057.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldschmidt N, Or O, Klein M, Savitsky B, Paltiel O. The role of routine imaging procedures in the detection of relapse of patients with Hodgkin lymphoma and aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Ann Hematol 2010 Aug 13. [Epub ahead of print].
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamlin PA, Zelenetz AD, Kewalramani T, et al. Age-adjusted International Prognostic Index predicts autologous stem cell transplantation outcome for patients with relapsed or primary refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Blood 2003;102:1989–1996.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar