Multicenter Comparison of Contrast-Enhanced FDG PET/CT and 64-Slice Multi-Detector-Row CT for Initial Staging and Response Evaluation at the End of Treatment in Patients With Lymphoma
- PMID: 28604477
- PMCID: PMC5502123
- DOI: 10.1097/RLU.0000000000001718
Multicenter Comparison of Contrast-Enhanced FDG PET/CT and 64-Slice Multi-Detector-Row CT for Initial Staging and Response Evaluation at the End of Treatment in Patients With Lymphoma
Abstract
Objectives: To compare staging correctness between contrast-enhanced FDG PET/ceCT and 64-slice multi-detector-row CT (ceCT64) for initial staging and response evaluation at the end of treatment (EOT) in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma, diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL), and follicular lymphoma.
Methods: This prospective study compared initial staging and response evaluation at EOT. One hundred eighty-one patients were randomly assigned to either ceCT64 or FDG PET/ceCT. A nuclear medicine physician and a radiologist read FDG PET/ceCT scans independently and achieved post hoc consensus, whereas another independent radiologist interpreted ceCT64 separately. The reference standard included all clinical information, all tests, and follow-up. Ethics committees of the participating centers approved the study, and all participants provided written consent.
Results: Ninety-one patients were randomized to ceCT64 and 90 to FDG PET/ceCT; 72 had Hodgkin lymphoma, 72 had DLBCL, and 37 had follicular lymphoma. There was excellent correlation between the reference standard and initial staging for both FDG PET/ceCT (κ = 0.96) and ceCT64 (κ = 0.84), although evaluation of the response at EOT was excellent only for FDG PET/ceCT (κ = 0.91).
Conclusions: Our study demonstrated satisfactory agreement between FDG PET/ceCT (κ = 0.96) and ceCT64 (κ = 0.84) in initial staging compared with the reference standard (P = 0.16). Response evaluation at EOT with FDG PET/ceCT (κ = 0.91) was superior compared with ceCT64 (κ = 0.307) (P < 0.001).
Conflict of interest statement
Conflicts of interest and sources of funding: This work was financially supported by the Spanish Health Ministry through the Fondo de Investigaciones Sanitarias (F.I.S.) of the Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid (file no. 11/01800) granted in 2011. The final report was presented in 2016.
Figures
References
-
- Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, et al. Cancer statistics, 2009. CA Cancer J Clin. 2009;59:225–249. - PubMed
-
- Swerdlow SH, Campo E, Harris NL, et al. WHO Classification of Tumours of Haematopoietic and Lymphoid Tissues. 4th ed Lyon, France: IARC; 2008.
-
- Hicks RJ, Mac Manus MP, Seymour JF. Initial staging of lymphoma with positron emission tomography and computed tomography. Semin Nucl Med. 2005;35:165–175. - PubMed
-
- Kwee TC, Kwee RM, Nievelstein RA. Imaging in staging of malignant lymphoma: a systematic review. Blood. 2008;111:504–516. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
