Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

FDG PET/CT methodology for evaluation of treatment response in lymphoma: from “graded visual analysis” and “semiquantitative SUVmax” to global disease burden assessment

  • Letter to the Editor
  • Published:
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

References

  1. Rossi C, Kanoun S, Berriolo-Riedinger A, Dygai-Cochet I, Humbert O, Legouge C, 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;55:569–73.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Hutchings M, Loft A, Hansen M, Pedersen LM, Buhl T, Jurlander J, et al. FDG-PET after two cycles of chemotherapy predicts treatment failure and progression-free survival in Hodgkin lymphoma. Blood. 2006;107:52–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Gallamini A, Hutchings M, Rigacci L, Specht L, Merli F, Hansen M, et al. Early interim 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography is prognostically superior to international prognostic score in advanced-stage Hodgkin’s lymphoma: a report from a joint Italian–Danish study. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:3746–52.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Basu S. Early FDG-PET response-adapted risk stratification and further therapeutic decision-making in lymphoma: will this replace the established prognostic indices and be the standard-of-care in clinical management? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;36(12):2089–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Visvikis D, Hatt M, Tixier F, Cheze Le Rest C. The age of reason for FDG PET image-derived indices. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39:1670–2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Meignan M, Gallamini A, Haioun C, Polliack A. Report on the Second International Workshop on interim positron emission tomography in lymphoma held in Menton, France, 8–9 April 2010. Leuk Lymphoma. 2010;51(12):2171–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Meignan M, Gallamini A, Itti E, Barrington S, Haioun C, Polliack A. Report on the Third International Workshop on Interim Positron Emission Tomography in lymphoma held in Menton, France, 26–27 September 2011 and Menton 2011 consensus. Leuk Lymphoma. 2012;53(10):1876–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Juweid ME, Stroobants S, Hoekstra OS, Mottaghy FM, Dietlein M, Guermazi A, 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(5):571–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Berkowitz A, Basu S, Srinivas S, Sankaran S, Schuster S, Alavi A. 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(6):521–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Kim TM, Paeng JC, Chun IK, Keam B, Jeon YK, Lee SH, et al. Total lesion glycolysis in positron emission tomography is a better predictor of outcome than the International Prognostic Index for patients with diffuse large B cell lymphoma. Cancer. 2013;119(6):1195–202.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Vach W, Høilund-Carlsen PF, Fischer BM, Gerke O, Weber W. How to study optimal timing of PET/CT for monitoring of cancer treatment. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;1(1):54–62.

Download references

Conflicts of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Radiation Medicine Centre, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Tata Memorial Hospital Annexe, Jerbai Wadia Road, Parel, Mumbai, 400 012, India

    Sandip Basu

  2. Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Geneva University Hospital, 1211, Geneva, Switzerland

    Habib Zaidi

  3. Geneva Neuroscience Centre, Geneva University, 1205, Geneva, Switzerland

    Habib Zaidi

  4. Department of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, 3400 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA

    Ali Salavati & Abass Alavi

  5. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Odense University Hospital, Sdr. Boulevard 29, 5000, Odense, Denmark

    Søren Hess & Poul Flemming Høilund Carlsen

Authors
  1. Sandip Basu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Habib Zaidi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ali Salavati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Søren Hess
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Poul Flemming Høilund Carlsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Abass Alavi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abass Alavi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Basu, S., Zaidi, H., Salavati, A. et al. FDG PET/CT methodology for evaluation of treatment response in lymphoma: from “graded visual analysis” and “semiquantitative SUVmax” to global disease burden assessment. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 41, 2158–2160 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-014-2826-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-014-2826-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation